Best Of

Pride of the RN.

3 days grounded (and counting) at Trivandrum airport, the @RoyalNavy F-35B clearly has a proper snag. Seen here being guarded by the @CISFHQrs. Here’s wishing the aircraft a safe return to its home deck soon...
https://x.com/ShivAroor/status/1935213356891218367

Ran short of fuel, and had to divert, I think.
Not sure what the problem is with topping it back up.

During ze War, when the U.S. B-29 bombers made emergency landings in the Russian Far East, the Soviets promptly interned them, and "reverse engineered" them into the Tupolev Tu-4.

That story is more fascinating the more you dive down into the details of it. As an example, because the US used imperial and the Russians metric, the Russians did not have sheet steel of the right thickness. That meant they had to go slightly thinner, and risk structural problems, or thicker, and have the plane heavier. But as Stalin had commanded an exact copy of the B-29, no-one would sign off any changes lest they go against Stalin's command.

This led to some rally stupid situations, including one where they did not want to change from the American IFF system to a Russian one, because that would mean a difference...

Pride of the RN.

3 days grounded (and counting) at Trivandrum airport, the @RoyalNavy F-35B clearly has a proper snag. Seen here being guarded by the @CISFHQrs. Here’s wishing the aircraft a safe return to its home deck soon...
https://x.com/ShivAroor/status/1935213356891218367

Ran short of fuel, and had to divert, I think.
Not sure what the problem is with topping it back up.

It probably was short of fuel by the time it got to Thiruvananthapuram but I will guarantee that it is not the reason it diverted there. Some sort of system failure that inhibited a VL would be my guess and now they are waiting for parts from UK/USA.

It'll be very hard to get it back to the ship because the CSG can't wait for it so they'll probably have to try to get it back to the UK. Pain in the dick either way. Nice job for the gingers getting full of lamb pasanda and slaughtered on Kingfisher every night while the bit spends six weeks in Indian customs.

BREAKING:
Twenty one hours is a long time in politics

Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran

'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.

'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'

https://x.com/steven_swinford/status/1934998085593141567?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.

Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.

https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/1935311921495916885?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.

Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?

It was a complete hostage to fortune to make any statement on Trump's future intentions given his track record.

on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.

I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.

I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.

I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.

Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.

I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.

I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).

I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.

Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention.
Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?

Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?

I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.

What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.

If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.

So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?

Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?

Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.

In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.

On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.

So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.

In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.

Ok.

What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?

I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.

"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."

Absurd.

It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?

That’s “absurd”?

There is something wrong in your head

'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.

At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?

Birth.

That's a legal/political view though, not a scientifical one. The science tells us that the foetus is very much conscious, and babies can recall their time in the womb, sometimes for a long period. Usually I would expect you to have some regard for the facts (obviously as you discern them) above peoples' sensitivities. That's how you portray yourself anyway.

What! I've never heard that. How do you know that?

They advise you to play it music at times of relaxation and the baby will recall the tune and be calmed by it.

That rather depends on the meaning of "recall". The baby will react differently to the tune it heard in utero. Learning has happened. I don't think that counts as recalling their time in the womb: there's no evidence of a conscious memory of that time.

BREAKING:
Twenty one hours is a long time in politics

Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran

'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.

'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'

https://x.com/steven_swinford/status/1934998085593141567?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.

Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.

https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/1935311921495916885?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

That's the trouble you get for yourself by believing what Trump's just told you.

He's had another, diametrically opposite thought since then.