The Office of the Secretary of War is announcing a significant change to the Department’s categorization of religious affiliation. In a long overdue move, we reduced the list from over 200 unmanageable categories to 31. With this move, we are returning to the original intent of collecting this data - to allow our chaplains and religious support personnel to provide the best spiritual care to our warfighters.
This decrease in religious affiliation codes is not designed to make any claims on the legitimacy of any faith or religious belief, nor is it intended to provide a list of “officially approved” religions. Rather, it is designed to allow chaplains to quickly look at the religious composition of their units and determine how they structure resources to best provide for warfighters of all faith groups.
The Department of War places a high value on the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion. Chaplains play an instrumental role in providing spiritual care and facilitating the Warfighters' ability to freely exercise their religion of choice, or no religion at all. With this new change, we believe we can provide the best data to support our chaplains in that effort.
@echetus I once read that the passenger pigeons used to compete with various rodents for food sources; once the pigeons were hunted to extinction the rodents - which serve as ticks hosts - have multipled tremendously
I think it’s basically saying that they started at each coast, and worked due south / north into the middle. But because of the two starting points were not perfectly lined up, when they met in the middle that they had to have the either funny corner they have now, or have the entire border at slight angle off north.
Great news! Not sure why Labour aren't making more of this ... I fear because they think such (absolutely necessary) measures will actually be unpopular with the public
Recent reforms designed to stop legal challenges delaying infrastructure are working.
So why is the Labour Government going even further?
My latest explains the thinking (and why further action is necessary).
https://t.co/DhFRBmYdIu
Badenoch is also absolutely right that in the UK we need to stop importing American issues & solutions as if they applied here. They do not, especially when it comes to race & to policing. American history is not remotely like British history when it comes to race.
I know it's just a name, but I'm immensely sad about this. Not only is "Business and Property Division" clunky and unwieldy, but this ends arguably c. 700 years of 'Chancery' being a part of the judicial system in England and Wales in one form or another.
Robert Pattinson reveals Christopher Nolan's response when he asked to read THE ODYSSEY script:
“I was like, ‘Yeah, can’t wait to read it.’ He’s like, ‘You want to read it? Everyone else just said yes.’”
(via @GQMagazine)
This Kirpan angle is a red herring. The important factors are (1) the police’s attitude to racism accusations (2) the murderer cynically leveraging that and (3) the collusion of the family. All three of these are indicative of wider and more serious problems than Kirpans.
@sainsburys the recommended cooking time on your ‘British purple sprouting broccoli’ is far too long. After 5-6 minutes boiling I am the proud owner of some green mush and an unhappy dining companion
The Mandy Files — 2. May 2025
Another zinger from Cabinet Minister Pat McFadden to Mandelson:
‘Every meeting I have is “who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others”. They’re asking the wrong questions.’
Wow! Just wow!!
1 1/2 million on the streets of Islington today. Celebrating Arsenal yes, but celebrating ourselves too.
Notting Hill Carnival with less cannabis & more red & white.
North London in all it's inclusive brilliance
Never been so proud to be your MP ❤️
Total answer to Tommy Robinson
My biggest gripes with the Renters Rights Act is that it ignores ‘Newton’s Third Law’: it heaps additional duties and risks onto landlords, which will have an equal and opposite effect on prices.
While things like security of tenure and access to pets are important for some tenants, it’s not at all clear that all tenants would prefer these additional rights to simply having cheaper rental costs.
The Act seeks to limit price increases but I think the specific mechanism it deploys here will actually accelerate price increases, in addition to the general upward and prices of the other parts of the Act will cause
While we’re on the topic, any increase in rent can be challenged at a tribunal for a £47 fee (or for free if you’re on benefits, etc).
The tribunal assesses whether the increase in line with “market rates”. But even if they rule in favour of the increase, the higher rent is only charged from the date of the ruling.
So for £47, you can delay an increase in rent for probably a month or two - or even more given how long these decisions will probably take. A no brainer for any tenant.
It seems like a very obvious unintended consequence that these tribunals will be gummed up. What is the government doing?!