CptAwesome posted:

Whats considered a normal wait to see a GP? I rang earlier today to make an appointment at my surgery and I've been told the next appointment is the 29th - literally 4 weeks away. Is it me or is this a bit long?

TinTower posted:

They could if Labour had a spine.

TinTower posted:

They keep putting the amendment back in. Again and again and again, if needs be.

jBrereton posted:

Yes because they're not the loving lib dems they're a party of government, and no other major party wanted it.

TinTower posted:

https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/84137834158846774

Corbyn fails to show up for his own rally. What a loving idiot.

ThomasPaine posted:

rees-mogg was entirely as expected and I just can't bring myself to hate him,

LemonDrizzle posted:

Being MP for Tatton must be the easiest job in the world if you can do it at the same time as editing a widely read newspaper and being a senior adviser to a major financial firm.

SpaceCommie posted:

I'm guessing it's "if I were a member of the LGBT community I'd be happy to be open at work."

goddamnedtwisto posted:

It's a massive problem, and one that nobody ever wants to address because a) mental health in this country was a loving mess even before the Tories started gutting it, and b) the main Forces-related charities are still stuck in this 19th century mindset about mental health. The RBL are a little bit better (in that they at least try to cope with institutionalisation and immediately-apparent PTSD) than H4H, who outright ignore mental health issues, but the only charities who really actually help both with the more or less unique stew of mental health problems that can be triggered by military service are completely dwarfed by those two.

Some of it of course is the general out-of-sight out-of-mind problem of mental health charities generally - a double amputee climbing Ben Nevis is a much better poster boy than someone managing to make it to the shops and back without crying - but the macho attitude surrounding the military compounds this massively, both in the lack of help and also in the minds of the victims, because they have totally internalised the "Just snap out of it" default attitude to mental health problems.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

It is a second-strike system that is basically indestructible - destroying that single sub would take either a chain of absolutely colossal and perfectly-timed series of fuckups, or the most incredible bit of luck in the history of warfare.

quote:

A Labour councillor who branded Oxford's homeless people "a disgrace" has visited a soup kitchen to "eat humble pie".

John Tanner made the comments on Radio Oxford, and added that tourists "don't want to see rough sleepers all over the place."

He apologised for his comments and accepted an invitation to the Oxford Community Soup Kitchen, run by Icolyn "Ma" Smith.

Taear posted:

I know this point has been hammered over and over but the Labour Party said absolutely loads about the budget. It was all over their twitter, they said stuff on the news. But it wasn't in the papers. Why would the Daily Mail report what labour has to say about something though? I don't know what he expects Labour to actually DO there.

ThomasPaine posted:

I think one thing that really should happen is the Labour left should stop trying to tell (because the media will ignore or distort them) and start showing. Foodbanks, community work etc etc etc. They have the resources to do it after the Corbyn influx. Make it loving obvious that Labour is actively helping people on a day-to-day basis in a way that cannot be ignored.

Pissflaps posted:

What are they waiting for?

Pissflaps posted:

Helps explain what happened in Copeland.

Gonzo McFee posted:

Subway's doing their Apprenticeships to become a loving sandwich maker as well.

dispatch_async posted:

End-to-end encryption on messaging services is unacceptable: UK minister

quote:

But chairman of the home affairs select committee, Yvette Cooper, told Sky News's Sophy Ridge on Sunday it was "not enough" for the government to have more meetings with technology companies.

namesake posted:

Honestly there's been a lot of really poor decision making going on here but Labour have actually managed to get themselves into a good spot on Brexit. No one can criticise them for opposing the will of the British people but by setting conditions which mean little changes for the worse or being able to state for the next 2 years that they won't support the particulars of Brexit as it comes out they'll win a lot of support pretty much no matter what happens.

quote:

Sir Keir, who will outline Labour's demands in a speech on Monday, told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show: "If our tests are not met then we do not intend to support the deal the government comes back with."

Among the tests is one calling for the "exact same benefits" the UK has from the single market and customs union - words he said were used by Brexit Secretary David Davis in Parliament.

"The government can't turn around and say this is unachievable because it was David Davis... who said that," he said.

Baron Corbyn posted:

53.3% of the English voted to leave. 52.5% of Wales voted to leave.

Looke posted:

has anyone posted this yet?

https://mobile.twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/846336035919421440

Oberleutnant posted:

I aint buying or reading it to find out, but equally disgusting is the way they've splashed that prick's daughter all over their front page.

TinTower posted:

Basically I'm saying that giving him a standard sentence for manslaughter is ridiculous when the nature of the crime (being an admitted violation of IHL) should have been a major aggravating factor.

TinTower posted:

Also if you notice in the sentencing summary, they actually weigh his prior service record against him breaking the Geneva Conventions.

That's like saying that Harold Shipman's murder sentence should have been weighed against the times he didn't murder grannies.

jabby posted:

Reading some of this makes me wish everybody present had been convicted of murder. Not sure if that's what you were going for.

jabby posted:

Get a life, leftists!

Next up, which female leader has the nicest arse? Ten pages of expert opinion.

quote:

Legend – or rather Hollywood – has it that the Scottish knight William Wallace daubed himself head-to-toe in blue woad paint to defeat the English army at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297.

Centuries later, Nicola Sturgeon has gone one step further, arriving to greet her Southern nemesis Theresa May apparently dressed as the Scottish Saltire.

Intentional or otherwise, the First Minister’s natty blue suit with white piping and matching light-coloured stilettos were unmistakably reminiscent of the Scottish flag, a subliminal if not entirely subtle indication of her feelings towards Westminster.

May, for her part, was stateswomanlike in a stylish navy jacket, a patterned dress and her trademark leopard-print heels.

Clearly, Sturgeon was hoping to knock those spots off her.

Nevertheless, clearly eager to give the world a show of unity, the two women posed together, mirroring each other’s stance, two sets of hands clasped calmly on the arms of their respective chairs.

But while May’s fingers, elegant with their classic red nails, were relaxed and open, Sturgeon’s grip appeared somewhat tenser, her right thumb at an awkward angle, bearing down on her left index finger in a vice-like grip, as though having to use every ounce of self-control to stop herself poking her rival in that gimlet eye.

Their expressions, too, told very different stories. May is pictured laughing all the way to her eyes, her head thrown slightly back, her chin sinking into her neck. It’s a relaxed, natural pose, her gaze confident and aimed directly at the camera.

Sturgeon, by contrast, looks less comfortable. She is glancing off to one side, her eyes like two hard little chocolate buttons, her smile about as warm and welcoming as Loch Lomond on a winter’s day.

But what stands out here are the legs – and the vast expanse on show. There is no doubt that both women consider their pins to be the finest weapon in their physical arsenal. Consequently, both have been unsheathed.

May’s famously long extremities are demurely arranged in her customary finishing-school stance – knees tightly together, calves at a flattering diagonal, feet neatly aligned. It’s a studied pose that reminds us that for all her confidence, she is ever the vicar’s daughter, always respectful and anxious not to put a foot wrong.

Sturgeon’s shorter but undeniably more shapely shanks are altogether more flirty, tantalisingly crossed, with the dominant leg pointing towards her audience.

It’s a direct attempt at seduction: her stiletto is not quite dangling off her foot, but it could be. ‘Come, succumb to my revolutionary allure,’ she seems to be saying. ‘You know you want to.’

The message to the Scottish electorate is clear. They have a simple choice: on the one hand the reliable, measured, considerate and cautious politics of Mrs May and the safety of a Union that has endured for 300 years – on the other a wild, dangerous leap into the unknown, a glorious moment of rebellion which could all too easily lead to a lifetime of regrets.

jabby posted:

Also for anyone who cares an adjustment disorder is a 'condition in which a person responds to a stressful event (such as an illness, job loss, or divorce) with extreme emotions and actions that cause problems at work and home'. It is normally self-limiting and symptoms persist no longer than six months after the stressor is removed.

It's been criticised for being a highly broad diagnosis, since by definition any display of extreme emotion or behaviour during a period of stress can be deemed evidence of an adjustment disorder. Some think the only reason it exists is as a useful label to enable stressed out patients to get therapy under their insurance. It's also highly convenient for Blackman, since it's short duration means he was not expected to display any symptoms during his psychiatric evaluation and is not expected to need any treatment for it now.

quote:

Dr Philip Joseph has been a consultant forensic psychiatrist since 1989. He has very great experience having assessed over 800 persons charged with homicide. He is recognised as a leader in his field. He was instructed by the CCRC and, after reaching his own conclusion, considered the reports that Dr Orr and Professor Greenberg had written. He agreed with both. He was, as the members of the court know from their own experience of his evidence in other cases, an extremely impressive and impartial witness.

jabby posted:

jabby posted:

The other side of my point is that you shouldn't strip someone of all their agency simply because they have a mental health condition. Even if you take at face value the psychiatrist's report, you still need to demonstrate that the reason that he shot the wounded fighter was because he wasn't in his right mind. As an argument against that, how about the fact that all of his squadmates talked about doing the same thing and to this day don't believe he did anything wrong? Are they all suffering from mental health conditions? Are the Daily Mail readers who think he was justified in what he did also mentally ill? Or is it perfectly plausible to believe that whether or not Blackman was suffering from adjustment disorder his decision to kill a wounded fighter was perfectly in keeping with his personality, beliefs, and the moral framework of himself and those around him?

quote:

"Adjustment disorder by comparison is an extremely subjective diagnosis even by the standards of psychiatry, since as I mentioned the only real criteria is to display extreme behaviour in the presence of a stressful situation"

TinTower posted:

As an aside, I'm surprised Marines B and C got off on the conspiracy to murder charge. They were fully complicit, and "just following orders" famously is not a valid defence to war crimes; they had an obligation to disobey any unlawful order from Blackman.

Comrade Cheggorsky posted:

has anyone said brexshit yet?

Bedshaped posted:

There will probably be 2 years of negotiation while May appears to be appeasing the hardliners and then boom; soft exit, freedom of travel and paying into the EU budget.