Best Of

So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.

There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.

I'm with you in saying bollocks to that.
The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.

It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.

I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.

US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...

They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.

Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus.
I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.

BBC v Trump

Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.

Can’t they both lose ?

However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.

Just for you.

https://x.com/EdwardJDavey/status/2000850649064546505
Keir Starmer needs to stand up for the BBC against Trump's outrageous $5bn lawsuit and protect licence fee payers from being hit in the pocket.

Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.

Starmer should take a leaf out of Trump's playbook - and pardon the BBC and all involved.

He doesn't have to (not that he could), since there is no real case.
It's impossible for Trump to argue damages from being accused of encouraging a group of people to do something that he regards as blameless - since he pardoned every single one of them.

And the effect of literally any comment, on the reputation of a man who tweeted what he did about the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, is quite obviously nugatory.

Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:

• The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
  
• Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
  
• Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
  
• Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
  
• Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
  

Yes, roads used to be better. An easy insight on that is to find a spot, and compare streetview for 2022 and 2009. I now have bushes growing out of some of my local pedestrian refuges.

They have never been good in the UK since the war, as we have no system to our maintenance, and Tom Dick or Harry can dig holes and botch the repairs.

Starmer's Govt are too timid to change this, and the Conservatives like a wild west system.

So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.

There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.

I'm with you in saying bollocks to that.
The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.

It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.

I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.

US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...

They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.

Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus.
I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.

BBC v Trump

Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.

Can’t they both lose ?

However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.

Just for you.

https://x.com/EdwardJDavey/status/2000850649064546505
Keir Starmer needs to stand up for the BBC against Trump's outrageous $5bn lawsuit and protect licence fee payers from being hit in the pocket.

Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.

Starmer should take a leaf out of Trump's playbook - and pardon the BBC and all involved.

Ukraine starting to lose German and French voter support which is pretty concerning. I suspect we shall get a bad peace deal in 2026, which will give the global economy a temporary boost but at the expense of emboldening Putin and might is right generally.

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-and-germans-lean-toward-dialing-back-ukraine-support-new-international-politico-poll-shows/

We won’t, Zelensky will only accept a ceasefire on current lines and Putin will only accept a ceasefire with Russia getting given more Ukrainian territory

A settlement on current lines wouldn't be good for VVP. Odessa might just make it all worth it. It was the Kulkovye Polye protests/massacre and subsequent firestorm of disinformation from both sides in 2014 that so inflamed Russian ire and germinated the conflict. Getting Katherine's city back would be the sort of sentimental symmetry that nourishes the Slavic psyche.

I see Big Z has now given up on joining NATO so you can sort of see the hazy outlines of a deal that could emerge. Russia will need more though.

Given the state of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Odessa looks unattainable.

Russian navy down one submarine, taken out by Ukranian suicide drone sub while in port at Novorossiysk.

https://x.com/girkingirkin/status/2000583441344028779

Stand by for a few more Ukranian drone subs heading for Novorossiysk in the coming days and weeks.

I was watching video of that yesterday. The drone rounded several ships and harbour fittings before hitting the submarine. It was seriously impressive but also a bit scary. I really wonder if the RN would have fared any better if facing such an attack.

Very scary. This new drone is basically a navigable torpedo that can go anywhere.

One assumes that the Royal Navy takes port security a little more seriously than the Russians, and can spot an enemy vessel approaching!

That's the rational for the sea drones the RN is testing. But it would require an awful lot of them, and I doubt the MoD has the money.

They surely need satellites to navigate and I imagine in a big war scenario those satellites will be gone in minutes?

There’s probably an inertia/star chart/object recognition/local radio towers based solution that doesn’t need satellites.

Some combination of INS and sea bed mapping.

Whatever this was, it wasn't a Sea Baby/Magura 5 as they 6m long surface vessels and there is nothing like that on the video.

The Ukranians were obviously active inside the port because they had that camera feed so it might be covert mine laying marketed as a new wonder drone for PR purposes.

A submersible drone is not really a massive advance on previously deployed technology, but it's definitely +1 for Ukraine that there's one less submarine to launch Kalibr cruise missiles.

In all the previous sea drone attacks, they used Starlink to control them.

It’s not hard to imagine a submersible drone that runs inertially, then comes up for orders.

The mini-Starlink dishes are pretty small now and the quality of the “lock” is crazy. In the US, the standard land based ones were getting popular with private pilots, before SpaceX clamped down on max speed) and there is a thing for mounting them for off road motorcycle races.

There’s rumours around of SpaceX spinning off Starlink with in IPO next year, potentially valued at $500bn. It’s a crazy technology and they’re years ahead of their competition in this space.

Not rumours - and they're not spinning off Starlink.

Musk is talking about taking the whole thing public - but only selling 2% of the (non-voting) shares to the public.

So he will still have 80% of the voting stock.

If they only sell 2% there will be a massive scramble for it, inflating the value even further.

He wants to see the value of the company but without jeopardising the Mars mission, which is his lifetime’s passion.

I thought his lifetime's passion was white supremacism.

There's a synergy. The dream is to facilitate white flight from Earth to bigger and better places. It's a tall order but if anyone can Elon can.

Meanwhile, this being a Labour government, UK unemployment continues to rise: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98nqe0m008o

And sometimes words just fail me:

"Annual average earnings growth was 3.9% for the private sector and 7.6% for the public sector, across the three-month period."

Isn't it the case that public sector wages lag private sector wages - pay settlements tend to be based on historic rates of inflation. In fact, you can see that quite clearly here in Figure 4/5, with public sector wages well behind private sector during the post-COVID period: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/december2025

add pension contributions , cushy number , conditions etc and it is the opposite.

I think it very much depends where you are. In most of Scotland public sector pay is actually substantially ahead of what the private sector is offering. So, for example, a one year qualified solicitor in the private sector will earn somewhere between £40 and £50k outside the most demanding areas. A procurator fiscal with the same qualifications will be paid £52-54K plus the extras that come from the public sector such as pension rights, more holidays, better sick pay, greater security of employment etc.

This is a problem for the private firms and more generally it is a real problem for the economy since the cream of the crop are tempted to the public sector where their skills are not necessarily fully utilised. This makes growing businesses in Scotland, and in other areas with depressed earnings, much more difficult and removes potential innovators or entrepreneurs from the scene.

In contrast, in more affluent areas we see the public sector really struggling to get qualified staff at all because they cannot compete with what is on offer.

The combination of these effects are to depress growth, entrepreneurship and investment in our poorer areas and to increase these in the richer ones. This is one of the major reasons so much money invested in "levelling up" , regional investment funds etc has simply not worked. Ironically, given this money is public sector driven, it can aggravate the problem rather than address it. Do you want a safe, secure, well paid job in some "enterprise company" or take your chances with a dodgy start up?

I think it is a major factor in our economic performance because we create this huge drag factor. Only existing hot spots can create the opportunities and employment needed for growth. Everywhere else the dead hand of an overheavy, over paid public sector destroys growth.

Which is why there should be no national pay agreements in the public sector. Each local organisation needs to deal with their own pay.

Possibly the best thing they could do is move the public sector pensions to DC scheme, but that has a significant short term cost.

As was mentioned upthread, the vast majority of public sector workers have no idea just how bad are most private-sector pensions now.

One of the largest public sector pension schemes is the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is DB. Do you think that should move to DC? Should there be local pay agreements such that squaddies in The Royal Anglian Regiment get different pay to those in The Royal Yorkshire Regiment?

The post 2015 AFPS is pretty shit compared to the 2005 version and very shit compared the glory days of the AFPS75 scheme (thank the God of War I'm on that). It's a big reason why we have a retention crisis at SNCO level, it's no longer worth staying in for...

Meanwhile, this being a Labour government, UK unemployment continues to rise: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98nqe0m008o

And sometimes words just fail me:

"Annual average earnings growth was 3.9% for the private sector and 7.6% for the public sector, across the three-month period."

Isn't it the case that public sector wages lag private sector wages - pay settlements tend to be based on historic rates of inflation. In fact, you can see that quite clearly here in Figure 4/5, with public sector wages well behind private sector during the post-COVID period: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/december2025

add pension contributions , cushy number , conditions etc and it is the opposite.

I think it very much depends where you are. In most of Scotland public sector pay is actually substantially ahead of what the private sector is offering. So, for example, a one year qualified solicitor in the private sector will earn somewhere between £40 and £50k outside the most demanding areas. A procurator fiscal with the same qualifications will be paid £52-54K plus the extras that come from the public sector such as pension rights, more holidays, better sick pay, greater security of employment etc.

This is a problem for the private firms and more generally it is a real problem for the economy since the cream of the crop are tempted to the public sector where their skills are not necessarily fully utilised. This makes growing businesses in Scotland, and in other areas with depressed earnings, much more difficult and removes potential innovators or entrepreneurs from the scene.

In contrast, in more affluent areas we see the public sector really struggling to get qualified staff at all because they cannot compete with what is on offer.

The combination of these effects are to depress growth, entrepreneurship and investment in our poorer areas and to increase these in the richer ones. This is one of the major reasons so much money invested in "levelling up" , regional investment funds etc has simply not worked. Ironically, given this money is public sector driven, it can aggravate the problem rather than address it. Do you want a safe, secure, well paid job in some "enterprise company" or take your chances with a dodgy start up?

I think it is a major factor in our economic performance because we create this huge drag factor. Only existing hot spots can create the opportunities and employment needed for growth. Everywhere else the dead hand of an overheavy, over paid public sector destroys growth.

Which is why there should be no national pay agreements in the public sector. Each local organisation needs to deal with their own pay.

Possibly the best thing they could do is move the public sector pensions to DC scheme, but that has a significant short term cost.

As was mentioned upthread, the vast majority of public sector workers have no idea just how bad are most private-sector pensions now.

One of the largest public sector pension schemes is the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is DB. Do you think that should move to DC? Should there be local pay agreements such that squaddies in The Royal Anglian Regiment get different pay to those in The Royal Yorkshire Regiment?

Hmm, [edit] differential benefits already exist, albeit primarily in salary (but feeding into pensions, one assumes). Remember when the Scottish Gmt raised income tax for some and lowered it for others. Cue performative indignation about brgadiers etc. having to pay more tax, and the Tory Gmt at Westminster increasing the salary of those unfortunates sent North of the Border (you'd think it was Beyond the Wall). But did they have indignation about the poor squaddies paying more tax in England, still less more salary? No, siree, they did not.

Edit: also the location of a regiment has no great relation in modern MoDthink to where they are/were nominally raised.

Meanwhile, this being a Labour government, UK unemployment continues to rise: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98nqe0m008o

And sometimes words just fail me:

"Annual average earnings growth was 3.9% for the private sector and 7.6% for the public sector, across the three-month period."

Well at least nobody can accuse Labour of ignoring its own core supporters

Er... Junior doctors are giving you a wave...

lol

As I forecast.

You need this place like an alcoholic needs booze. I said you’d be back.

Welcome back old chap.

Sorry Taz, I've posted three times ( this will be the fourth) in nearly three weeks. If it offends you I am quite happy to f*** off completely.

Given I said ‘welcome back’, how do you take that as me not wanting you here.

I’m happy wankers like Jessop and Ishmael aren’t here anymore.

I thought we were cool, both similar age, west mids, engineering background, shared experiences. Both used to drink in The Plough. Sadly now shut.

I genuinely wish you well. I don’t think this place would be poorer if you returned permanently.

My quote was simply a Sweeney reference from the final episode