1-11 + 13 maybe good but largely irrelevant in the face of 12.

The performative dog whistle cruelty of 12, the "when Starmer said stand at a fork in the road, he meant let's follow Reform down the far right one" of 12, is the only thing.

Shameful. Not in my name.

They always cover the story. It's more subtle than that.

You'll see no mention of him as an Algerian immigrant in those leading paras. Rightly so, it's irrelevant. (CBA to read it all to see if snuck in later.)

Now, imagine if he had been accused of a crime. Immigrant = 3rd word of headline.

I've done the hard yards so you don't have to: It's in the Sun the Daily Mail, the Sun, GBNews, ... (not yet checked the Express).

I now need to go and rest my eyes.

I rather like their disingenuous use of 'overlooks' too, a word most of us understand to mean 'ignores' or 'avoids', but where they seem to be going for its - shall we say niche? - use as 'looks at while fully participating in'.

You'd almost think they were implying one thing by writing another.

In what way is it 'infamous'?

On the sofa

Our evolution:
(1) Dog not allowed on sofa.
(2) Dog allowed on sofa if blanket first.
(3) Dog allowed on sofa.
(4) Dog gets first dibs, we sit where dog does not wanna be.
(5) Dog owns sofa.

About 8 days that.

I'd also say your pet's name is not a great answer to the security question "what is your pet's name?" It is a little better, though, than your mother's maiden name in answer to "what is your mother's maiden name?"

In both cases, develop a pattern of wrong answers and use it.

I nearly went a bit Falling Down at a "fat content 4% per 100g" on the back of a pack of cereal a while back, so I sympathise.

"Attacking" does a lot of heavy lifting in this sort of speech.

What was the Bush/Rumsfeld era phrasing for something that was definitely not an attack, honest - "a preemptive defensive strike" iirc?

I thought it was "goodestest"?

Well, I believe in those things, yes.

But I fear the Labour party's complicitness, Reform tribute act/deafening silence stance on these topics means that "the public" are only hearing one narrative and are now fully on board with it.

Basically, your diagram suggest a solar system that is pretty full.

It isn't. It's mostly made up of fuck all (apart from the sun, which is well north of 99% of it) with occasional bits called planets and moons thrown in.

Ahem. No.

Agreed it's got many objects (moons) then we usually show, some of which are planet scale big.

But, scales are not right here. Diameter of Jupiter should be around 11 times that of Earth. Orbits are too tight - Nept and Uranus are very much further away than Venus and Mercury.

A miracle has occurred and I got it in one.

(In fairness, I got Stockholm and Lahore in one when they came up too - hark at me being all la-di-dah).

Is there a name for the reverse roadenfreude when you're at a standstill, looking across at the free moving lanes and thinking:

"They've got roadenfreude now but I know what's coming for them in a couple of miles ..."?

Ahh, the cookery end of chemistry and its love of curly arrows.