Do your fucking job. Don’t “two sides to every story” lie. There is clear video. You would not equivocate if this were another country and another government. The only possible reason you do here is cowardice. Shame on you. As individuals. Every one of you who wrote and approved this.
January 8, 2026 at 6:38 AM
Do your fucking job. Don’t “two sides to every story” lie. There is clear video. You would not equivocate if this were another country and another government. The only possible reason you do here is cowardice. Shame on you. As individuals. Every one of you who wrote and approved this.
2025 Survey of UK Public on Foreign Policy and Global Affairs. British Foreign Policy Group: More Britons see President Trump as a threat to national security (33%) than terrorism (32%) or China (25%). Fieldwork in May-June. A lot happened since.
January 7, 2026 at 9:10 PM
2025 Survey of UK Public on Foreign Policy and Global Affairs. British Foreign Policy Group: More Britons see President Trump as a threat to national security (33%) than terrorism (32%) or China (25%). Fieldwork in May-June. A lot happened since.
Conflicting accounts. But also clear video evidence.Honest question. Is this the dream you had as a child to be a journalist. To churn out mealy mouthed equivocation over the murder of civilians by a brutal regime? What does it profit a man to inherit the world, if he lose his soul?
January 7, 2026 at 7:25 PM
Conflicting accounts. But also clear video evidence.Honest question. Is this the dream you had as a child to be a journalist. To churn out mealy mouthed equivocation over the murder of civilians by a brutal regime? What does it profit a man to inherit the world, if he lose his soul?
The US doesn’t give a toss about international law - whether it’s UNCLOS, ICC or CAT. They’d see being accused of breaking it as at worst an irrelevance at best a badge of honour. So by refusing to state a clear fact Starmer has simply demeaned himself and his office.
January 5, 2026 at 10:33 PM
The US doesn’t give a toss about international law - whether it’s UNCLOS, ICC or CAT. They’d see being accused of breaking it as at worst an irrelevance at best a badge of honour. So by refusing to state a clear fact Starmer has simply demeaned himself and his office.
What he lacks in values, competence and spine he makes up for in political savvy and charisma.
January 4, 2026 at 9:02 AM
What he lacks in values, competence and spine he makes up for in political savvy and charisma.
The world today is run by the evil and the cowardly. Our government is the latter. Unforgivable.
January 4, 2026 at 8:59 AM
The world today is run by the evil and the cowardly. Our government is the latter. Unforgivable.
What is the point of Keir Starmer? Lack of charisma is acceptable. Lack of political savvy and economic competence worrying. Lack of vision depressing. But this? Lack of integrity. Fatal.
January 3, 2026 at 9:10 PM
What is the point of Keir Starmer? Lack of charisma is acceptable. Lack of political savvy and economic competence worrying. Lack of vision depressing. But this? Lack of integrity. Fatal.
When they toppled Saddam the crowds cheered on the streets and tore down his statues.
January 3, 2026 at 7:49 PM
When they toppled Saddam the crowds cheered on the streets and tore down his statues.
I was about the last person in the civil service with a good word for Keir. But this is the final straw. He never had charisma. He could leave the economy to others (not very successfully). But he was meant to have integrity. To understand the importance of the rule of law. He’s an embarrassment.
January 3, 2026 at 7:48 PM
I was about the last person in the civil service with a good word for Keir. But this is the final straw. He never had charisma. He could leave the economy to others (not very successfully). But he was meant to have integrity. To understand the importance of the rule of law. He’s an embarrassment.
Gangsters not vigilantes.
January 2, 2026 at 8:04 AM
Gangsters not vigilantes.
Well, it was Israeli advisers who helped China in Xinjiang.
December 31, 2025 at 8:10 AM
Well, it was Israeli advisers who helped China in Xinjiang.
It excludes my mother and my son. I find it frightening.
December 31, 2025 at 8:08 AM
It excludes my mother and my son. I find it frightening.
I suspect recognition of 八项规定 is low but if they asked “should government officials have fewer expensive lunches and be banned from using taxpayers’ money on fine wines and whiskies” then 80% is surprisingly low.
December 30, 2025 at 7:05 PM
I suspect recognition of 八项规定 is low but if they asked “should government officials have fewer expensive lunches and be banned from using taxpayers’ money on fine wines and whiskies” then 80% is surprisingly low.
I agree. Though it’s normally the political elite - whose children will be safe in Vancouver- who make glib estimates of an easy Chinese victory. Ask the 老百姓 and they largely agree that it’s they and their families who always pay the price.
December 29, 2025 at 8:12 PM
I agree. Though it’s normally the political elite - whose children will be safe in Vancouver- who make glib estimates of an easy Chinese victory. Ask the 老百姓 and they largely agree that it’s they and their families who always pay the price.
It’s an interesting article and the core point is as you describe. I’m annoyed specifically at the claim that Chinese pronouns are largely split between male and female. My issue with 它 is similarly the claim that a number of pronouns for objects exist. In short I’m being pedantic.
December 27, 2025 at 7:48 AM
It’s an interesting article and the core point is as you describe. I’m annoyed specifically at the claim that Chinese pronouns are largely split between male and female. My issue with 它 is similarly the claim that a number of pronouns for objects exist. In short I’m being pedantic.
The article refers to “the other pronouns” (plural) that refer to objects and animals. There is only one such pronoun. 它 . I don’t think you speak Chinese or you would not be arguing with me over this.
December 26, 2025 at 8:14 PM
The article refers to “the other pronouns” (plural) that refer to objects and animals. There is only one such pronoun. 它 . I don’t think you speak Chinese or you would not be arguing with me over this.
I may have to. It was a long time ago. When the film first landed. But the more I think back the more I realise my original comment underplayed his admiration for the character of Rizzo.
December 26, 2025 at 5:52 PM
I may have to. It was a long time ago. When the film first landed. But the more I think back the more I realise my original comment underplayed his admiration for the character of Rizzo.
Yes. Chinese pronouns are not “largely split between male and female” - there are no gender variants for 1st and 2nd person. As it acknowledges 她 is an anomaly in a language without gender. It refers to the “other pronouns” used for objects but there is only one 它. Interesting topic but sloppy.
December 26, 2025 at 4:53 PM
Yes. Chinese pronouns are not “largely split between male and female” - there are no gender variants for 1st and 2nd person. As it acknowledges 她 is an anomaly in a language without gender. It refers to the “other pronouns” used for objects but there is only one 它. Interesting topic but sloppy.
My Lord. Who wrote this “Chinese pronouns are largely split between female and male” - there is a single male-ish pronoun 他 and a single female pronoun 她.
December 26, 2025 at 8:28 AM
My Lord. Who wrote this “Chinese pronouns are largely split between female and male” - there is a single male-ish pronoun 他 and a single female pronoun 她.
I am good friends with a Professor of English literature at Oxford University who agrees wholeheartedly with you. He is particularly keen on the internalization of the audience through Gonzo - apparently a key Dickensian device.
December 26, 2025 at 8:14 AM
I am good friends with a Professor of English literature at Oxford University who agrees wholeheartedly with you. He is particularly keen on the internalization of the audience through Gonzo - apparently a key Dickensian device.
Hey. I suspect we have many friends and acquaintances in common from State/FCDO. Can I commend you for your clarity and directness. The current situation is too dangerous to allow for anything less. Something my own government will eventually learn.
December 25, 2025 at 3:06 PM
Hey. I suspect we have many friends and acquaintances in common from State/FCDO. Can I commend you for your clarity and directness. The current situation is too dangerous to allow for anything less. Something my own government will eventually learn.
1968 for me. Born in a crossfire hurricane. Raised by a toothless, bearded hag. Schooled with a strap right across my back. But you know what, no point in getting all nostalgic about the past. it’s alright now.
https://past.it’s
December 25, 2025 at 9:19 AM
1968 for me. Born in a crossfire hurricane. Raised by a toothless, bearded hag. Schooled with a strap right across my back. But you know what, no point in getting all nostalgic about the past. it’s alright now.
I often hear people say “Watch yourself” “Watch what you’re doing” or “Watch it”. No wonder we have raised a generation of self-obsessed screen addicts. Linguistic determinism is as simple as it is deadly.
December 24, 2025 at 10:36 AM
I often hear people say “Watch yourself” “Watch what you’re doing” or “Watch it”. No wonder we have raised a generation of self-obsessed screen addicts. Linguistic determinism is as simple as it is deadly.
If I hear another person say that 危机 means that the Chinese see an opportunity in a crisis, I might kill them.
December 24, 2025 at 10:32 AM
If I hear another person say that 危机 means that the Chinese see an opportunity in a crisis, I might kill them.