I have even heard MPs alleging that the prime minister himself has been doing this,” Bryant told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “What I have said to all of those people is that that is misconduct in public office. The people who should be dealing with such allegations are the police.
“It is illegal. We are meant to operate as MPs without fear or favour. The allocation of taxpayer funding to constituencies should be according to need, not according to the need to keep the prime minister in his job.”
He described the government’s levelling up fund as “an open opportunity for government ministers to corruptly hand out money to some MPs and not to others”.
Morning all in news that will delight @Dura_Ace and be no surprise at all to @IshmaelZ I am currently in A&E with a very large bump where my shoulder and collarbone usually are.
Given that I am dressed like a posho twat I fully expected them to refuse me treatment. But before I had finished the first draft of this post they had called me in to be triaged.
Painkillers with a reassuringly high street value mean that all is well in the world.
Texting facilities unaffected. And no one asked me for my vaccination status.
Oh fuck, could be worse, collar bones are basically sacrificial parts
I had one of my twice yearly hedges days yesterday, happily intact.
Excellent. It was one of those with a ditch away that did for me.
I happily send get well hugs Topping 🤗 But like Dura Ace, your tough as old boots and don’t need restorative hugs from me?
Very kind thank you.
Wishing you well.
By hedges, do you mean cutting hedges, or bicycling into a hedge, or being pushed into a hedge by a version of Dura_Ace going past at 823 mph in a Hoon Wagon or on a Superman Bike?
A Posho Twat in a Posho Hat. It rhymes.
Thanks v much. Jumping over them. Or not. And yes it's s good rhyme. Dammit.
I might have seen Dura out this morning but he was on foot and in his black from head to toe outfit if so.
Mounted, or on foot ? If the latter, then kudos.
LOL mounted.
I learned to ride as a kid, but it's a hobby I happily abandoned. Though I'm sure there are exceptions, horses seem to me more dangerous and less rational than your average politician.
I have even heard MPs alleging that the prime minister himself has been doing this,” Bryant told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “What I have said to all of those people is that that is misconduct in public office. The people who should be dealing with such allegations are the police.
“It is illegal. We are meant to operate as MPs without fear or favour. The allocation of taxpayer funding to constituencies should be according to need, not according to the need to keep the prime minister in his job.”
He described the government’s levelling up fund as “an open opportunity for government ministers to corruptly hand out money to some MPs and not to others”.
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
Yes, Biden's comment was weird and dangerous - I can't imagine what he was thinking.
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Biden’s as dangerous as Trump, possibly even worse as Putin would have been worried about the unpredictability of Trump’s response.
If Russia takes Ukraine, there will definitely be an armed NATO presence right on their border.
Western nations shovelling weapons to Ukraine, will make a massive difference to their ability to defend themselves.
Germany right now are looking like appeasers of Putin. Someone, maybe even a deniable group of Westerners, are about to put a big hole in that pipeline if Putin tries to march to Kiev.
Donald Trump was the most predictable US president in history. In any situation he'd behave like an arsehole. He was also right up the aforesaid of Vladimir Putin. We should be immeasurably relieved he has no role in this crisis. It doesn't bear thinking about.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
Yes, Biden's comment was weird and dangerous - I can't imagine what he was thinking.
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Biden’s as dangerous as Trump, possibly even worse as Putin would have been worried about the unpredictability of Trump’s response.
If Russia takes Ukraine, there will definitely be an armed NATO presence right on their border.
Western nations shovelling weapons to Ukraine, will make a massive difference to their ability to defend themselves.
Germany right now are looking like appeasers of Putin. Someone, maybe even a deniable group of Westerners, are about to put a big hole in that pipeline if Putin tries to march to Kiev.
Donald Trump was the most predictable US president in history. In any situation he'd behave like an arsehole. He was also right up the aforesaid of Vladimir Putin. We should be immeasurably relieved he has no role in this crisis. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Yes, definitely agree with that. Biden may be a doddering old fool, yet he's a significant improvement on Trump.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
I think that is a very myopic view. As Brexiteers - including myself and you in the past - are keen to say, we left a political institution whose benefits we did not believe outweighed the costs in both monetary and political terms. We did not leave the continent of Europe and we did not, at any time, say that we wanted to cut ourselves off from our neighbours. If we want to try to prevent Russia's westward expansion then the best way to do that is to show we are united in our opposition to them. This is where Germany is wrong. We should not make the same mistakes as they are currently making, whether the US is behind us or not.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Selling TB2s to the Ukranian Air Force and Navy while setting up a Ukranian production line for them.
Note 'selling'. Somehow I doubt we're being similarly remunerated for our contribution to the cause.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
Yes, Biden's comment was weird and dangerous - I can't imagine what he was thinking.
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Biden’s as dangerous as Trump, possibly even worse as Putin would have been worried about the unpredictability of Trump’s response.
If Russia takes Ukraine, there will definitely be an armed NATO presence right on their border.
Western nations shovelling weapons to Ukraine, will make a massive difference to their ability to defend themselves.
Germany right now are looking like appeasers of Putin. Someone, maybe even a deniable group of Westerners, are about to put a big hole in that pipeline if Putin tries to march to Kiev.
Donald Trump was the most predictable US president in history. In any situation he'd behave like an arsehole. He was also right up the aforesaid of Vladimir Putin. We should be immeasurably relieved he has no role in this crisis. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Yes, definitely agree with that. Biden may be a doddering old fool, yet he's a significant improvement on Trump.
George HW Bush was the best foreign policy President in my life so far. He was right about so much, particularly:
- the end of the Cold War - German reunification where even Mrs Thatcher got it wrong - Saddam Hussein where most of his advisors were advocating caution
He was pro-democracy, unlike say Trump but not weak or starry-eyed about it, unlike Carter or the neo-cons.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Selling TB2s to the Ukranian Air Force and Navy while setting up a Ukranian production line for them.
Note 'selling'. Somehow I doubt we're being similarly remunerated for our contribution to the cause.
If we're not I hope it's credited against our wildly extravagant aid budget.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
I think we too easily attribute it mostly to worries about gas. The closer one is to the issue the more the historical complexities become apparent. Nationalist Ukranians see history as a long struggle for independence, finally achieved and now threatened once again. Nationalist Russians see Ukraine as separatists, and are baffled by talk of Crimea or East Ukraine themselves being separatists. Russians with family memories of WWII remember early Ukranian collaboration with the Nazis, and point to the toleration of armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion). Ukranians with family memories of the 30s think of Stalin's Holodomor and near-national starvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
Except they are getting involved to some extent - by putting roadblocks in the way if aid to Ukraine.
The fact stands that Putin is set to violate the UN Charter, again. This is not really a 'both sides' situation.
By comparuson the UK and Canada have trained around 30k Ukranian personnel in toto between 2015 and now with a staff of several hundred in theatre.
They continued with the contract *after* Ukraine and been invaded and occupied in 2014, and it was only stopped by EU sanctions later.
There have been other contracts.
Meanwhile, whilst Ukrainian soldiers are being killed by cross-border drone attacks and sniping, they have been stopping shipment of anti-drone and anti-sniper systems to Ukraine by other NATO allies. Under a policy of 'preventing escalation by keeping arms out of the area'.
So, Germany has been equipping the aggressor, and weakening the victim. Plus taking many steps during Merkel's time which made them weaker and weaker vis a vis Russia.
Which is hard to forgive imo.
To me an historical analogy is the UK and French Governments withdrawing support from the Czech Govt in 1938 because of our own political / military position, and forcing them to accept German invasion of the Sudetenland.
At least we have arguably learnt the damned lesson.
I didn't know most of that - interesting, and I see your point.
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
Yes, Biden's comment was weird and dangerous - I can't imagine what he was thinking.
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Biden’s as dangerous as Trump, possibly even worse as Putin would have been worried about the unpredictability of Trump’s response.
If Russia takes Ukraine, there will definitely be an armed NATO presence right on their border.
Western nations shovelling weapons to Ukraine, will make a massive difference to their ability to defend themselves.
Germany right now are looking like appeasers of Putin. Someone, maybe even a deniable group of Westerners, are about to put a big hole in that pipeline if Putin tries to march to Kiev.
Donald Trump was the most predictable US president in history. In any situation he'd behave like an arsehole. He was also right up the aforesaid of Vladimir Putin. We should be immeasurably relieved he has no role in this crisis. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Yes, definitely agree with that. Biden may be a doddering old fool, yet he's a significant improvement on Trump.
Doddering, certainly, but not a complete fool. He seems to realise what's at stake, and has acted fairly quickly on Ukraine. And the foolish gaffe was nonetheless a reflection of reality - the scale of response will be determined by the scale of any incursion.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Selling TB2s to the Ukranian Air Force and Navy while setting up a Ukranian production line for them.
Note 'selling'. Somehow I doubt we're being similarly remunerated for our contribution to the cause.
Call me old-fashioned and/or naive, but on Ukraine/Russia it seems to me that Biden, Blinken and various European state leaders are doing exactly what I would wish them to do. Namely, exhausting every diplomatic avenue possible in the hope that they can avert conflict and deaths, rather than the macho posturing that some on here seem to favour. You never know, the diplomacy may persuade Putin to desist.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Selling TB2s to the Ukranian Air Force and Navy while setting up a Ukranian production line for them.
Note 'selling'. Somehow I doubt we're being similarly remunerated for our contribution to the cause.
I have no particular insight but my guess is the UK had a large stock of NLAW because they bought 10,000 for some reason in about 2010. Some or many of these will reach end of life without ever being fired because live fire exercises are expensive so we try not to do them. Then they found a motivated buyer in Ukraine...
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
We're speculating on a remote prospect (imo) but a realistic European alternative to NATO would require Germany to play a part commensurate with its size and wealth. It would also require them to sign up to common goals. If the US decides to ditch Europe this is what I think would evolve - a serious European alternative - and I think we'd be in it.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
I believe that there’s even a multi faceted poster on here who has bummed up the defender of family values and scourge of woke Putin. Mad…
Is that a cryptic crossword clue ?
Alone, headless and disorganised in Spain (4 letters)
Call me old-fashioned and/or naive, but on Ukraine/Russia it seems to me that Biden, Blinken and various European state leaders are doing exactly what I would wish them to do. Namely, exhausting every diplomatic avenue possible in the hope that they can avert conflict and deaths, rather than the macho posturing that some on here seem to favour. You never know, the diplomacy may persuade Putin to desist.
Yes, diplomacy first, as always. But the path to peace runs through the point where Russia understands that it may no longer invade its neighbours without consequences. If you want to save lives, you have to promise that Russian soldiers will die on the frozen Ukrainian mud if they try to take more chunks out of Ukraine. It's not nice, and there's much more to it than that, but that has to be the final resort and we ought to be very clear about it.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
I believe that there’s even a multi faceted poster on here who has bummed up the defender of family values and scourge of woke Putin. Mad…
Is that a cryptic crossword clue ?
Alone, headless and disorganised in Spain (4 letters)
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
I believe that there’s even a multi faceted poster on here who has bummed up the defender of family values and scourge of woke Putin. Mad…
Is that a cryptic crossword clue ?
Alone, headless and disorganised in Spain (4 letters)
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
I believe that there’s even a multi faceted poster on here who has bummed up the defender of family values and scourge of woke Putin. Mad…
Is that a cryptic crossword clue ?
Alone, headless and disorganised in Spain (4 letters)
Noel?
Leon. Though at the moment it should be "Alone, headless and disorganised in Sri Lanka" (4 letters)
Thing is they can hide behind rules is rules and it's exactly the same mindset that meant people couldn't visit or say goodbye to their dying relatives and all the low level horror we've had these past two years.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
We're speculating on a remote prospect (imo) but a realistic European alternative to NATO would require Germany to play a part commensurate with its size and wealth. It would also require them to sign up to common goals. If the US decides to ditch Europe this is what I think would evolve - a serious European alternative - and I think we'd be in it.
It is theoretically possible that when NATO flames out the UK might not have a nationalist-populist tory government crewed exclusively by amoral, sociopathic lackwits and therefore may be more amenable to European defence cooperation than defending Lord Howe Island from the Peoples Liberation Army.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue they are (or were) *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
Wragg and Bryant and blackmail are the headline on all news sites now.
You can lay bojo to leave 2023 or later at 3.4 on smarkets exit date by quarter market if you want some free money
The forces ranged against him are now formidable. I'd include the BBC. His supporters are starting to look seedy and ragged. What's worse for them is that the supply of ammunition pointing at them is limitless and his allies are going to peel off. I'm looking forward to watching how long Rishi stay's in the bunker before he decides that it's a bit smelly.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
In our local villages there are new houses popping up left, right and centre. None of them has a solar panel fitted at the building stage, although a very few householders have gone to the expense of getting them retrofitted. This is madness, all the more so when there's a planning application before the council to build a solar farm on a mile of agricultural land.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
I know of some council houses in SE Scotland where they had solar panels fitted from the start.
This has been my massive bugbear for years. We build a couple of hundred thousand houses a year in the UK. Why can we not make it a planning condition that every new house has to be fitted with solar panels during the construction process? Both economies of scale and removing the need for remedial alterations to fit them would make it much cheaper than it currently is to retro-fit and if you are spending £150K or more on a new house then the additional marginal cost to the buyer is insignificant.
I don't disagree at all. But is there not a problem with contracts for solar panels? Making owner occupied houses difficult to sell etc. I have no idea how that works with the council houses (or even if those are water or electric panels).
The problem with contracts is when you lease your roof out to save having to pay the capital cost of the panels, then sell the house. It is a creature of too-generous subsidy early on.
On compulsory solar in new houses I disagree. It is a mistake to be so prescriptive. There are situations where solar panels do not work well - examples are at the base of a North-facing steep hill (eg some glens in Scotland or Stoniey Middleton or Matlock Bath in Derbyshire), potentially in a mature wooded area, or in some configurations of estate design.
It is better to have a model that allows tradeoffs as appropriate, and a high overall standard, which is what we have with the as-designed SAP procedure.
A similar method is eg to trade off bigger windows against better insulated walls - a long established approach in Building Regs.
Here's a great example of what happens when you mandate (or here, subsidise beyond the benefit provided) things. Solar panels on a Doctors near me. I'd say these were installed for the grant not the environment. Perhaps they also got a grant for the trees.
So you refine it a little. But the basic principle should be the same. Except under exceptional circumstances all new builds have solar panels included.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
We're speculating on a remote prospect (imo) but a realistic European alternative to NATO would require Germany to play a part commensurate with its size and wealth. It would also require them to sign up to common goals. If the US decides to ditch Europe this is what I think would evolve - a serious European alternative - and I think we'd be in it.
It is theoretically possible that when NATO flames out the UK might not have a nationalist-populist tory government crewed exclusively by amoral, sociopathic lackwits and therefore may be more amenable to European defence cooperation than defending Lord Howe Island from the Peoples Liberation Army.
You don’t even need to not be an amoral, sociopathic lackwit.
You just need to have the most basic understanding of defence strategy and British geography.
NHS Update II: They are very big on Sepsis here. Posters all over advising on symptoms. Including "I feel like I'm about to die". How does someone know what that feels like.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
I believe that there’s even a multi faceted poster on here who has bummed up the defender of family values and scourge of woke Putin. Mad…
Is that a cryptic crossword clue ?
Alone, headless and disorganised in Spain (4 letters)
Noel?
Leon. Though at the moment it should be "Alone, headless and disorganised in Sri Lanka" (4 letters)
Normal people: that was a close one, better clean up my act.
BJ: ha ha, got away with it again, onwards and upwards!
Yep, nothing cuddly about this big amiable looking bear. "Do not come close" is what the sign on the gate should say.
Gros chien méchant for sure.
Or gross in the Franglais.
Can I ask. are 'F*ck the SNP' banners commonplace at Ibrox, or is the example I saw recently a canary in the coalmine?
Not sure what kind of canary you think 'F*ck the SNP' banners are from a support with a section of extreme Unionism and Loyalism might be, but yes, about as unexpected as a Johnson lie. I'm sure the Ibrox stewards were right onto it..
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue that they are *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
The trouble is the law doesn't say anything about the defendant being reasonable or their belief being reasonable, Only that the defendant should believe their grounds are reasonable. Apparently the defendant can be unreasonable and their belief can be unreasonable, so long as the belief is genuine!
It seems an odd way to frame the law. But I suppose demands with menaces - "if you don't do what I want, I'll do something you don't like" - are so common at a petty level in everyday life that the bar has to be set high.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue they are (or were) *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
Don't forget it's up to the jury*. So any whip claiming that it was their reasonable belief that such corrupt pressure was OK, is going to be taking something of a risk.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue that they are *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
The trouble is the law doesn't say anything about the defendant being reasonable or their belief being reasonable, Only that the defendant should believe their grounds are reasonable. Apparently the defendant can be unreasonable and their belief can be unreasonable, so long as the belief is genuine!
It seems an odd way to frame the law. But I suppose demands with menaces - "if you don't do what I want, I'll do something you don't like" - are so common at a petty level in everyday life that the bar has to be set high.
But what they don't like is something nice they didn't have to start with.
They were promised it as part of the political agreement that they are now abrogating.
NHS Update II: They are very big on Sepsis here. Posters all over advising on symptoms. Including "I feel like I'm about to die". How does someone know what that feels like.
Well that's obvious. Though those that survived to tell us aren't much use in the matter...
I have even heard MPs alleging that the prime minister himself has been doing this,” Bryant told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “What I have said to all of those people is that that is misconduct in public office. The people who should be dealing with such allegations are the police.
“It is illegal. We are meant to operate as MPs without fear or favour. The allocation of taxpayer funding to constituencies should be according to need, not according to the need to keep the prime minister in his job.”
He described the government’s levelling up fund as “an open opportunity for government ministers to corruptly hand out money to some MPs and not to others”.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
We're speculating on a remote prospect (imo) but a realistic European alternative to NATO would require Germany to play a part commensurate with its size and wealth. It would also require them to sign up to common goals. If the US decides to ditch Europe this is what I think would evolve - a serious European alternative - and I think we'd be in it.
It is theoretically possible that when NATO flames out the UK might not have a nationalist-populist tory government crewed exclusively by amoral, sociopathic lackwits and therefore may be more amenable to European defence cooperation than defending Lord Howe Island from the Peoples Liberation Army.
It won't, and nor should it. Britain needs to have a powerful Navy, and confine our adventures on land to brief forays, preferably against people armed with spears. The more we get involved in continental conflicts, the worse off we are, and the less we involve ourselves, the better off we are. Why do we have to learn this lesson time and time and time again?
I thought Brexiteers loved Europe, just not the EU... or at least so they proclaimed during the referendum. Yet they seem happy to leave it to Russia's devices.
On the contrary, we are equipping the hell out of Ukraine, and hoping that our European neighbours, EU and non-EU, join the fight against Putin.
I have even heard MPs alleging that the prime minister himself has been doing this,” Bryant told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “What I have said to all of those people is that that is misconduct in public office. The people who should be dealing with such allegations are the police.
“It is illegal. We are meant to operate as MPs without fear or favour. The allocation of taxpayer funding to constituencies should be according to need, not according to the need to keep the prime minister in his job.”
He described the government’s levelling up fund as “an open opportunity for government ministers to corruptly hand out money to some MPs and not to others”.
Hah, yes, that was my example yesterday, although there have been others. The bridge to nowhere. A nice piece of engineering, but a very expensive way to prop up the vote in a by-election.
It was of course supposed to be the start of a great eastern motorway...
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
I believe that there’s even a multi faceted poster on here who has bummed up the defender of family values and scourge of woke Putin. Mad…
Is that a cryptic crossword clue ?
Alone, headless and disorganised in Spain (4 letters)
Noel?
Leon. Though at the moment it should be "Alone, headless and disorganised in Sri Lanka" (4 letters)
Edit: Though I see others have beaten me to it.
I must admit the “in Spain” confused me. I was trying to find a way to wrap “ES” as the first and last letters.
Call me old-fashioned and/or naive, but on Ukraine/Russia it seems to me that Biden, Blinken and various European state leaders are doing exactly what I would wish them to do. Namely, exhausting every diplomatic avenue possible in the hope that they can avert conflict and deaths, rather than the macho posturing that some on here seem to favour. You never know, the diplomacy may persuade Putin to desist.
Yes, diplomacy first, as always. But the path to peace runs through the point where Russia understands that it may no longer invade its neighbours without consequences. If you want to save lives, you have to promise that Russian soldiers will die on the frozen Ukrainian mud if they try to take more chunks out of Ukraine. It's not nice, and there's much more to it than that, but that has to be the final resort and we ought to be very clear about it.
There has been quite a lot of gunfire from the ranges over the last week. Guns, not small arms. More than usual. Wonder if some of our Ukrainian friends are over here learning how to use our kit.
Also, the prospect of a Tory whip swearing in court that they had a reasonable belief it's justified to threaten to withhold funding to constituency schools in return for an MP's vote would provide an interesting and educative spectacle.
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
Yes, Biden's comment was weird and dangerous - I can't imagine what he was thinking.
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Biden’s as dangerous as Trump, possibly even worse as Putin would have been worried about the unpredictability of Trump’s response.
If Russia takes Ukraine, there will definitely be an armed NATO presence right on their border.
Western nations shovelling weapons to Ukraine, will make a massive difference to their ability to defend themselves.
Germany right now are looking like appeasers of Putin. Someone, maybe even a deniable group of Westerners, are about to put a big hole in that pipeline if Putin tries to march to Kiev.
Donald Trump was the most predictable US president in history. In any situation he'd behave like an arsehole. He was also right up the aforesaid of Vladimir Putin. We should be immeasurably relieved he has no role in this crisis. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Yes, definitely agree with that. Biden may be a doddering old fool, yet he's a significant improvement on Trump.
Doddering, certainly, but not a complete fool. He seems to realise what's at stake, and has acted fairly quickly on Ukraine. And the foolish gaffe was nonetheless a reflection of reality - the scale of response will be determined by the scale of any incursion.
I seem alone - and so I guess I'm probably wrong - in just not seeing Biden's comment as any big deal at all. It's obvious that the response to Russia's aggression towards Ukraine will be guided by the nature and the scale of the aggression. Of course he could have said something like, "They touch a hair on Ukraine's head and there'll be fire and fury like the world has never seen." Great, but would this have impacted Putin's calculus? Does he form his view on what the US position is from Biden domestic press conferences? Or does he derive it from his geopolitical sense and information gleaned from intel and meetings and diplomatic back channels? Surely the latter. If it were otherwise, dealing with him would be a piece of cake. Just talk tough. Anybody could do it.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue they are (or were) *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
Don't forget it's up to the jury*. So any whip claiming that it was their reasonable belief that such corrupt pressure was OK, is going to be taking something of a risk.
*See also statue topplers...
Yes indeed it is up to the jury and in my limited experience (four cases) I should say they vary enormously. A lot turns on the qualty and intelligence of the jurors. We astonished one court by finding a defendant guilty even though technically the evidence for the crime in question was lacking. The view was taken however that he was definitely up to something and knew what he was doing and that it was illegal. We just weren't going to let him get away with it and found him guilty anyway, technicalities notwithstanding.
By contrast one plainly guilty defendant got off because most of the jurors were extraordinarily stupid and the rest just wanted to go home early. (The judge in this case took the unusual step of detaining us while he gave the abject defendant a good talking to.)
When you've sat on a few cases you do begin to appreciate just how variable and unpredictable juries are. They would certainly be within their rights to decide that blackmail or not, threatening an MP in the way Wakefield describes is just not on.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue they are (or were) *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
Don't forget it's up to the jury*. So any whip claiming that it was their reasonable belief that such corrupt pressure was OK, is going to be taking something of a risk.
*See also statue topplers...
Yes, I don't suppose this will be going anywhere near a court but if it were to I wouldn't have thought an "I thought it was fine" defence is any sort of a slam dunk.
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
Yes, Biden's comment was weird and dangerous - I can't imagine what he was thinking.
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Biden’s as dangerous as Trump, possibly even worse as Putin would have been worried about the unpredictability of Trump’s response.
If Russia takes Ukraine, there will definitely be an armed NATO presence right on their border.
Western nations shovelling weapons to Ukraine, will make a massive difference to their ability to defend themselves.
Germany right now are looking like appeasers of Putin. Someone, maybe even a deniable group of Westerners, are about to put a big hole in that pipeline if Putin tries to march to Kiev.
Donald Trump was the most predictable US president in history. In any situation he'd behave like an arsehole. He was also right up the aforesaid of Vladimir Putin. We should be immeasurably relieved he has no role in this crisis. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Yes, definitely agree with that. Biden may be a doddering old fool, yet he's a significant improvement on Trump.
Doddering, certainly, but not a complete fool. He seems to realise what's at stake, and has acted fairly quickly on Ukraine. And the foolish gaffe was nonetheless a reflection of reality - the scale of response will be determined by the scale of any incursion.
I seem alone - and so I guess I'm probably wrong - in just not seeing Biden's comment as any big deal at all. It's obvious that the response to Russia's aggression towards Ukraine will be guided by the nature and the scale of the aggression. Of course he could have said something like, "They touch a hair on Ukraine's head and there'll be fire and fury like the world has never seen." Great, but would this have impacted Putin's calculus? Does he form his view on what the US position is from Biden domestic press conferences? Or does he derive it from his geopolitical sense and information gleaned from intel and meetings and diplomatic back channels? Surely the latter. If it were otherwise, dealing with him would be a piece of cake. Just talk tough. Anybody could do it.
Your view on his shooting his senile mouth off is based on nothing more than your political biases. Had Trump uttered the same sentence, you'd be losing your shit over it.
Also, the prospect of a Tory whip swearing in court that they had a reasonable belief it's justified to threaten to withhold funding to constituency schools in return for an MP's vote would provide an interesting and educative spectacle.
Ooh, yes please ... but it is for all I know one of those cases where the English language collides with constitutional law. Vide the case of Mr Carmichael MP and his, erm, inexactitudes about the First Minister and M. le Consul. Also an educational spectacle, with a surprising ending.
Jeezo, Louis de Bernières aint the brightest bulb in the box.
Cost of living crisis: food grown in Lincolnshire should be sold in Lincolnshire.
Well, not sure what he has done to deserve your ire, but having a read a few of his excellent books and thinking of the contrast to the often incoherent and none too intellectual rubbish that you write, I suspect that he is a considerably "brighter bulb" than yourself.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue they are (or were) *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
Don't forget it's up to the jury*. So any whip claiming that it was their reasonable belief that such corrupt pressure was OK, is going to be taking something of a risk.
*See also statue topplers...
Yes indeed it is up to the jury and in my limited experience (four cases) I should say they vary enormously. A lot turns on the qualty and intelligence of the jurors. We astonished one court by finding a defendant guilty even though technically the evidence for the crime in question was lacking. The view was taken however that he was definitely up to something and knew what he was doing and that it was illegal. We just weren't going to let him get away with it and found him guilty anyway, technicalities notwithstanding.
By contrast one plainly guilty defendant got off because most of the jurors were extraordinarily stupid and the rest just wanted to go home early. (The judge in this case took the unusual step of detaining us while he gave the abject defendant a good talking to.)
When you've sat on a few cases you do begin to appreciate just how variable and unpredictable juries are. They would certainly be within the rights to decide that blackmail or not, threatening an MP in the way Wakefield describes is just not on.
I’m pretty sure such a threat would amount to blackmail. If a whip can genuinely claim they they can make such plain threats to the well-being of constituents without jeopardy (which seems implausible), then there ought to be an amendment to the law.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
No we won't, that would be idiotic.
We would continue it with Canada, France, Poland, Turkey, Italy etc to contain Russia.
Though the Biden administration at least has committed the US to NATO again anyway
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue that they are *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
The trouble is the law doesn't say anything about the defendant being reasonable or their belief being reasonable, Only that the defendant should believe their grounds are reasonable. Apparently the defendant can be unreasonable and their belief can be unreasonable, so long as the belief is genuine!
It seems an odd way to frame the law. But I suppose demands with menaces - "if you don't do what I want, I'll do something you don't like" - are so common at a petty level in everyday life that the bar has to be set high.
I'd have thought an MP - even a Tory one - is by definition a 'reasonable person' so the defence might be problematical.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Selling TB2s to the Ukranian Air Force and Navy while setting up a Ukranian production line for them.
Note 'selling'. Somehow I doubt we're being similarly remunerated for our contribution to the cause.
I have no particular insight but my guess is the UK had a large stock of NLAW because they bought 10,000 for some reason in about 2010. Some or many of these will reach end of life without ever being fired because live fire exercises are expensive so we try not to do them. Then they found a motivated buyer in Ukraine...
My impression of that is that it is rather more than 10k in stock (20k is what I seem to read), made in NI, and relatively cheap compared to alternatives (£20k per), easy to use.
And I am surmising that the finance would be coming from the 10 year £1 billion ish export finance package from whatever the ECGD is called now, which is aiui paying for the patrol boats we are supplying / being made in Ukraine, and perhaps the naval base projects.
Jeezo, Louis de Bernières aint the brightest bulb in the box.
Cost of living crisis: food grown in Lincolnshire should be sold in Lincolnshire.
Well, not sure what he has done to deserve your ire, but having a read a few of his excellent books and thinking of the contrast to the often incoherent and none too intellectual rubbish that you write, I suspect that he is a considerably "brighter bulb" than yourself.
I'm not sure why you assiduously stalk the posts of several PBers on here, but there you go, life's a mystery innit.
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
Yes, Biden's comment was weird and dangerous - I can't imagine what he was thinking.
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Biden’s as dangerous as Trump, possibly even worse as Putin would have been worried about the unpredictability of Trump’s response.
If Russia takes Ukraine, there will definitely be an armed NATO presence right on their border.
Western nations shovelling weapons to Ukraine, will make a massive difference to their ability to defend themselves.
Germany right now are looking like appeasers of Putin. Someone, maybe even a deniable group of Westerners, are about to put a big hole in that pipeline if Putin tries to march to Kiev.
Donald Trump was the most predictable US president in history. In any situation he'd behave like an arsehole. He was also right up the aforesaid of Vladimir Putin. We should be immeasurably relieved he has no role in this crisis. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Yes, definitely agree with that. Biden may be a doddering old fool, yet he's a significant improvement on Trump.
Doddering, certainly, but not a complete fool. He seems to realise what's at stake, and has acted fairly quickly on Ukraine. And the foolish gaffe was nonetheless a reflection of reality - the scale of response will be determined by the scale of any incursion.
I seem alone - and so I guess I'm probably wrong - in just not seeing Biden's comment as any big deal at all. It's obvious that the response to Russia's aggression towards Ukraine will be guided by the nature and the scale of the aggression. Of course he could have said something like, "They touch a hair on Ukraine's head and there'll be fire and fury like the world has never seen." Great, but would this have impacted Putin's calculus? Does he form his view on what the US position is from Biden domestic press conferences? Or does he derive it from his geopolitical sense and information gleaned from intel and meetings and diplomatic back channels? Surely the latter. If it were otherwise, dealing with him would be a piece of cake. Just talk tough. Anybody could do it.
I’m a bit sympathetic to that - Ukraine certainly wasn’t, though.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Russia has a bigger military than ours and if Putin had conquered most of Eastern and Western Europe it would be us next if he took the risk we would not start a nuclear war. China however would have to have conquered most of Asia as well as most of Europe before it even got to us.
It may not be likely but a Russian invasion of the UK is far more likely than a Chinese invasion of the UK. NATO therefore does also have a role in protecting us from invasion via mutual self defence amongst European powers and Turkey as well as the US and Canada. Even absent the US we still need NATO therefore for our own defence
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Russia has a bigger military than ours and if Putin had conquered most of Eastern and Western Europe it would be us next if he took the risk we would not start a nuclear war. China however would have to have conquered most of Asia as well as most of Europe before it even got to us.
It may not be likely but a Russian invasion of the UK is far more likely than a Chinese invasion of the UK. NATO therefore does also have a role in protecting us from invasion via mutual self defence amongst European powers and Turkey as well as the US and Canada. Even absent the US we still need NATO therefore for our own defence
Are you certifiable? In what world could Russia have conquered any of Western Europe? You've pinned your everlasting support for NATO based on the idea that Russia could one day invade the UK, I think you might need to reassess that because it's never going to happen.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue they are (or were) *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
Don't forget it's up to the jury*. So any whip claiming that it was their reasonable belief that such corrupt pressure was OK, is going to be taking something of a risk.
*See also statue topplers...
Yes indeed it is up to the jury and in my limited experience (four cases) I should say they vary enormously. A lot turns on the qualty and intelligence of the jurors. We astonished one court by finding a defendant guilty even though technically the evidence for the crime in question was lacking. The view was taken however that he was definitely up to something and knew what he was doing and that it was illegal. We just weren't going to let him get away with it and found him guilty anyway, technicalities notwithstanding.
By contrast one plainly guilty defendant got off because most of the jurors were extraordinarily stupid and the rest just wanted to go home early. (The judge in this case took the unusual step of detaining us while he gave the abject defendant a good talking to.)
When you've sat on a few cases you do begin to appreciate just how variable and unpredictable juries are. They would certainly be within the rights to decide that blackmail or not, threatening an MP in the way Wakefield describes is just not on.
I’m pretty sure such a threat would amount to blackmail. If a whip can genuinely claim they they can make such plain threats to the well-being of constituents without jeopardy (which seems implausible), then there ought to be an amendment to the law.
The law seems happy to leave it to the good sense of courts and juries to decide what is and what is not unreasonable in any given set of circumstances without being too prescriptive.
'Do the washing-up or you can't go down the pub tonite' is hardly blackmail. 'Support the PM or your constituents don't get their new school' is a bit doubtful. Would depend on the precise circumstances, and the jury perhaps.
Normal people: that was a close one, better clean up my act.
BJ: ha ha, got away with it again, onwards and upwards!
Yep, nothing cuddly about this big amiable looking bear. "Do not come close" is what the sign on the gate should say.
Gros chien méchant for sure.
Or gross in the Franglais.
Can I ask. are 'F*ck the SNP' banners commonplace at Ibrox, or is the example I saw recently a canary in the coalmine?
Not sure what kind of canary you think 'F*ck the SNP' banners are from a support with a section of extreme Unionism and Loyalism might be, but yes, about as unexpected as a Johnson lie. I'm sure the Ibrox stewards were right onto it..
'Canary in the coal mine' might be more if it appeared at a Celtic game.
"Going to fly this at the match and if I don't get grief I'll tell the lads it's safe to route the march straight through Clydebank on Tuesday."
(apols if I've got the geog wrong, I know little of Glasgow)
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Russia has a bigger military than ours and if Putin had conquered most of Eastern and Western Europe it would be us next if he took the risk we would not start a nuclear war. China however would have to have conquered most of Asia as well as most of Europe before it even got to us.
It may not be likely but a Russian invasion of the UK is far more likely than a Chinese invasion of the UK. NATO therefore does also have a role in protecting us from invasion via mutual self defence amongst European powers and Turkey as well as the US and Canada. Even absent the US we still need NATO therefore for our own defence
Are you certifiable? In what world could Russia have conquered any of Western Europe? You've pinned your everlasting support for NATO based on the idea that Russia could one day invade the UK, I think you might need to reassess that because it's never going to happen.
Much the same was said of Hitler and Germany in 1938 and look what happened by 1940. Most of Europe was under Nazi or Fascist control and we were alone in Europe holding off the Nazis.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Russia has a bigger military than ours and if Putin had conquered most of Eastern and Western Europe it would be us next if he took the risk we would not start a nuclear war. China however would have to have conquered most of Asia as well as most of Europe before it even got to us.
On that argument it sounds as though it's the French we should be most worried about!
Jeezo, Louis de Bernières aint the brightest bulb in the box.
Cost of living crisis: food grown in Lincolnshire should be sold in Lincolnshire.
Well, not sure what he has done to deserve your ire, but having a read a few of his excellent books and thinking of the contrast to the often incoherent and none too intellectual rubbish that you write, I suspect that he is a considerably "brighter bulb" than yourself.
I'm not sure why you assiduously stalk the posts of several PBers on here, but there you go, life's a mystery innit.
Don't flatter yourself. I dont stalk anyone, but if I occasionally pop in and see someone write some sort of biased crap I am not going to leave it unchallenged. The fact that you write inarticulate biased crap on a regular basis means that I might comment on yours more often. de Bernieres is one of the brightest and best authors of his generation IMO, and one of my favourites, so when someone who clearly has the cultural understanding of an amoeba such as yourself writes something that is such demonstrable nonsense then I will comment. Have a lovely day.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Russia has a bigger military than ours and if Putin had conquered most of Eastern and Western Europe it would be us next if he took the risk we would not start a nuclear war. China however would have to have conquered most of Asia as well as most of Europe before it even got to us.
It may not be likely but a Russian invasion of the UK is far more likely than a Chinese invasion of the UK. NATO therefore does also have a role in protecting us from invasion via mutual self defence amongst European powers and Turkey as well as the US and Canada. Even absent the US we still need NATO therefore for our own defence
Are you certifiable? In what world could Russia have conquered any of Western Europe? You've pinned your everlasting support for NATO based on the idea that Russia could one day invade the UK, I think you might need to reassess that because it's never going to happen.
Much the same was said of Hitler and Germany in 1938 and look what happened by 1940. Most of Europe was under Nazi or Fascist control and we were along in Europe holding off the Nazis.
No it wasn't and that was before nuclear weapons. I honestly think you've got a screw loose if you actually believe Russia could or would invade the UK. I'm not even sure they've got the capability to launch an amphibious attack on the UK, they are a ground based military, not a sea faring one.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Russia has a bigger military than ours and if Putin had conquered most of Eastern and Western Europe it would be us next if he took the risk we would not start a nuclear war. China however would have to have conquered most of Asia as well as most of Europe before it even got to us.
On that argument it sounds as though it's the French we should be most worried about!
Seriously, there's more of a chance that France becomes some kind of fascist or communist dictatorship and invades the UK than Russia invading the UK.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Russia has a bigger military than ours and if Putin had conquered most of Eastern and Western Europe it would be us next if he took the risk we would not start a nuclear war. China however would have to have conquered most of Asia as well as most of Europe before it even got to us.
It may not be likely but a Russian invasion of the UK is far more likely than a Chinese invasion of the UK. NATO therefore does also have a role in protecting us from invasion via mutual self defence amongst European powers and Turkey as well as the US and Canada. Even absent the US we still need NATO therefore for our own defence
Are you certifiable? In what world could Russia have conquered any of Western Europe? You've pinned your everlasting support for NATO based on the idea that Russia could one day invade the UK, I think you might need to reassess that because it's never going to happen.
Much the same was said of Hitler and Germany in 1938 and look what happened by 1940. Most of Europe was under Nazi or Fascist control and we were along in Europe holding off the Nazis.
No it wasn't and that was before nuclear weapons. I honestly think you've got a screw loose if you actually believe Russia could or would invade the UK. I'm not even sure they've got the capability to launch an amphibious attack on the UK, they are a ground based military, not a sea faring one.
Russia also has a bigger navy than ours.
If we want to abandon NATO we therefore need to rebuild our navy to the size it was in 1900 to ensure it and the RAF could hold off the Russian navy and airforce alone
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Russia has a bigger military than ours and if Putin had conquered most of Eastern and Western Europe it would be us next if he took the risk we would not start a nuclear war. China however would have to have conquered most of Asia as well as most of Europe before it even got to us.
It may not be likely but a Russian invasion of the UK is far more likely than a Chinese invasion of the UK. NATO therefore does also have a role in protecting us from invasion via mutual self defence amongst European powers and Turkey as well as the US and Canada. Even absent the US we still need NATO therefore for our own defence
Are you certifiable? In what world could Russia have conquered any of Western Europe? You've pinned your everlasting support for NATO based on the idea that Russia could one day invade the UK, I think you might need to reassess that because it's never going to happen.
Much the same was said of Hitler and Germany in 1938 and look what happened by 1940. Most of Europe was under Nazi or Fascist control and we were along in Europe holding off the Nazis.
No it wasn't and that was before nuclear weapons. I honestly think you've got a screw loose if you actually believe Russia could or would invade the UK. I'm not even sure they've got the capability to launch an amphibious attack on the UK, they are a ground based military, not a sea faring one.
Russia also has a bigger navy than ours.
If we want to abandon NATO we therefore need to rebuild our navy to the size it was in 1900 to ensure it and the RAF could hold off the Russian navy and airforce alone
Hmm, not even any Dreadnoughts. Never mind any aircraft carriers, air defence destroyers, submarines ...
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Russia has a bigger military than ours and if Putin had conquered most of Eastern and Western Europe it would be us next if he took the risk we would not start a nuclear war. China however would have to have conquered most of Asia as well as most of Europe before it even got to us.
It may not be likely but a Russian invasion of the UK is far more likely than a Chinese invasion of the UK. NATO therefore does also have a role in protecting us from invasion via mutual self defence amongst European powers and Turkey as well as the US and Canada. Even absent the US we still need NATO therefore for our own defence
Are you certifiable? In what world could Russia have conquered any of Western Europe? You've pinned your everlasting support for NATO based on the idea that Russia could one day invade the UK, I think you might need to reassess that because it's never going to happen.
Much the same was said of Hitler and Germany in 1938 and look what happened by 1940. Most of Europe was under Nazi or Fascist control and we were along in Europe holding off the Nazis.
No it wasn't and that was before nuclear weapons. I honestly think you've got a screw loose if you actually believe Russia could or would invade the UK. I'm not even sure they've got the capability to launch an amphibious attack on the UK, they are a ground based military, not a sea faring one.
Russia also has a bigger navy than ours.
If we want to abandon NATO we therefore need to rebuild our navy to the size it was in 1900 to ensure it and the RAF could hold off the Russian navy and airforce alone
Hmm, not even any Dreadnoughts. Never mind any aircraft carriers, air defence destroyers, submarines ...
Actually, I'm not going to get sucked in, got better things to do on a Saturday.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue that they are *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
The trouble is the law doesn't say anything about the defendant being reasonable or their belief being reasonable, Only that the defendant should believe their grounds are reasonable. Apparently the defendant can be unreasonable and their belief can be unreasonable, so long as the belief is genuine!
It seems an odd way to frame the law. But I suppose demands with menaces - "if you don't do what I want, I'll do something you don't like" - are so common at a petty level in everyday life that the bar has to be set high.
I'd have thought an MP - even a Tory one - is by definition a 'reasonable person' ...
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Methinks your antipathy towards the EU is rather clouding your views here. Pragmatically when faced with an aggressive Eastern neighbour we have to engage with the EU countries in some form of defensive pact. That does not preclude also being involved in the Pacific but defending New Zealand against China does not help us defend ourselves against Russia.
Pragmatically I think the calculation is that what happens on the continent is no longer our problem. They've made it clear that it isn't our problem either, all throughout the Brexit negotiations they made it clear.
But why is the Pacific or anywhere else our problem? If this is the mindset the logical policy is surely to opt out, slash the military, be neutral.
Because China actually does pose a threat to the free nations of Asia and the Pacific. Russia doesn't, or at least the EU doesn't have the will to do what is necessary to hand Russia an economic defeat big enough to drive Putin back.
From the perspective of a UK taxpayer, what's in it for us to spend our blood and treasure for the EU? In Asia there is significant potential upside, in the EU I can see none.
I'm not suggesting we make that calculation and I'm supportive of the action that the government has taken to try and prevent Ukraine being conquered and ultimately protect the Eastern border, yet that is done alongside the US. If the US decides it's had enough of German hand wringing and two facedness the situation changes. Our commitment will have to multiples larger, and we'll essentially be standing the bill for Germany deciding that having Russian gas is more important than freedom in Ukraine and eventually preventing Russian expansion into the EU itself.
Why should we pay the price for Germany having an appeasement based foreign policy? Our Asian allies are all stepping up to help contain China, our major EU "ally" has decided it doesn't want to. That's the difference.
Absolutely not.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
In what world are we going to be invaded by Russia? Are you really saying that Russia has the capability and will to mount an amphibious attack on the UK, a nuclear power? Our support for NATO is not to defend ourselves from invasion by Russia it's to lend our military power to those who are under threat from an invasion.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Russia has a bigger military than ours and if Putin had conquered most of Eastern and Western Europe it would be us next if he took the risk we would not start a nuclear war. China however would have to have conquered most of Asia as well as most of Europe before it even got to us.
It may not be likely but a Russian invasion of the UK is far more likely than a Chinese invasion of the UK. NATO therefore does also have a role in protecting us from invasion via mutual self defence amongst European powers and Turkey as well as the US and Canada. Even absent the US we still need NATO therefore for our own defence
Are you certifiable? In what world could Russia have conquered any of Western Europe? You've pinned your everlasting support for NATO based on the idea that Russia could one day invade the UK, I think you might need to reassess that because it's never going to happen.
Much the same was said of Hitler and Germany in 1938 and look what happened by 1940. Most of Europe was under Nazi or Fascist control and we were along in Europe holding off the Nazis.
No it wasn't and that was before nuclear weapons. I honestly think you've got a screw loose if you actually believe Russia could or would invade the UK. I'm not even sure they've got the capability to launch an amphibious attack on the UK, they are a ground based military, not a sea faring one.
Russia also has a bigger navy than ours.
If we want to abandon NATO we therefore need to rebuild our navy to the size it was in 1900 to ensure it and the RAF could hold off the Russian navy and airforce alone
Hmm, not even any Dreadnoughts. Never mind any aircraft carriers, air defence destroyers, submarines ...
Actually, I'm not going to get sucked in, got better things to do on a Saturday.
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
Yes, Biden's comment was weird and dangerous - I can't imagine what he was thinking.
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Biden’s as dangerous as Trump, possibly even worse as Putin would have been worried about the unpredictability of Trump’s response.
If Russia takes Ukraine, there will definitely be an armed NATO presence right on their border.
Western nations shovelling weapons to Ukraine, will make a massive difference to their ability to defend themselves.
Germany right now are looking like appeasers of Putin. Someone, maybe even a deniable group of Westerners, are about to put a big hole in that pipeline if Putin tries to march to Kiev.
Donald Trump was the most predictable US president in history. In any situation he'd behave like an arsehole. He was also right up the aforesaid of Vladimir Putin. We should be immeasurably relieved he has no role in this crisis. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Yes, definitely agree with that. Biden may be a doddering old fool, yet he's a significant improvement on Trump.
Doddering, certainly, but not a complete fool. He seems to realise what's at stake, and has acted fairly quickly on Ukraine. And the foolish gaffe was nonetheless a reflection of reality - the scale of response will be determined by the scale of any incursion.
I seem alone - and so I guess I'm probably wrong - in just not seeing Biden's comment as any big deal at all. It's obvious that the response to Russia's aggression towards Ukraine will be guided by the nature and the scale of the aggression. Of course he could have said something like, "They touch a hair on Ukraine's head and there'll be fire and fury like the world has never seen." Great, but would this have impacted Putin's calculus? Does he form his view on what the US position is from Biden domestic press conferences? Or does he derive it from his geopolitical sense and information gleaned from intel and meetings and diplomatic back channels? Surely the latter. If it were otherwise, dealing with him would be a piece of cake. Just talk tough. Anybody could do it.
I’m a bit sympathetic to that - Ukraine certainly wasn’t, though.
I did hear some hurt voices from there. Clumsy, yes, to cause that when you didn't have to.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We'd be in a far better position had we started this a decade back. As you know, it's one political issue I strongly agree with you on.
Tidal barrages would be a useful addition to the power supply mix, but IMO MM is over-egging the pudding. Schemes large enough to make a massive difference are problematic and hyper-expensive in their own right.
Stop buying the nuclear industry hype - they really aren't. For example, the tidal lagoon in Cardiff would have a capital cost of a third of that of Hinkley C, for an almost identical power output - and would last at least twice as long, probably far longer. Without the massive cost of dismantling them at the end of their productive life.
Plus you have a facility that revitalises a rundown area, full of amenity space. Unlike the nuclear plants, that need a force of armed soldiers to stop people getting anywhere near them.
And in Cardiff, you have the benefit of 650 acres of land to the east of the city that currently floods being turned into developable land.
Normal people: that was a close one, better clean up my act.
BJ: ha ha, got away with it again, onwards and upwards!
Yep, nothing cuddly about this big amiable looking bear. "Do not come close" is what the sign on the gate should say.
Gros chien méchant for sure.
Or gross in the Franglais.
Can I ask. are 'F*ck the SNP' banners commonplace at Ibrox, or is the example I saw recently a canary in the coalmine?
Not sure what kind of canary you think 'F*ck the SNP' banners are from a support with a section of extreme Unionism and Loyalism might be, but yes, about as unexpected as a Johnson lie. I'm sure the Ibrox stewards were right onto it..
'Canary in the coal mine' might be more if it appeared at a Celtic game.
"Going to fly this at the match and if I don't get grief I'll tell the lads it's safe to route the march straight through Clydebank on Tuesday."
(apols if I've got the geog wrong, I know little of Glasgow)
Ironically The Green Brigade (CFC supporters on the ultra side) have flown similar stuff at Celtic Park, mostly because they think the SNP are part of the Prod Dominion intent on oppressing Catholics. As so often the extremes of both sides have more in common than they'd care to admit.
Clydebank like most parts of West of Scotland certainly has its marches. I fear for the return of the marching season this year as the lads in blue and orange have had their craving to stomp triumphantly past Catholic chapels cruelly restricted since Covid struck.
This is a more serious matter still than the PM lying to Parliament. It's outright corruption.
When you quoted the law on blackmail, I didn't read it properly and posted a nonsensical kneejerk reaction.
Just out of interest, did anyone manage to explain how it was possible to convict, except purely through the jury being convinced the defendant was lying?
I'm not familiar with any blackmail case law, but I would assume there is a reasonably high hurdle for a defendant to prove that they genuinely believed that they were acting reasonably in their own view. The burden of proof for a particular legal defence to a crime sometimes means that the onus is on the defendant to prove it, I think (while the beyond reasonable doubt test applies to the case as a whole).
Something like that would seem reasonable (I believe with the old insanity defence the onus was on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities). But all the online information I could find says the opposite, including the CPS website: "It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
Thanks, that's a very useful link which I didn't turn up during the previous discussion. It also says: ...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
Yes, that certainly covers threats to do things that are themselves intrinsically illegal. But it seems to leave untouched whole swaths of activity that most people would unhesitatingly identify as blackmail - such as demanding money to keep quiet about an extra-marital affair. Obviously it can't be argued that it would be illegal purely because blackmail itself is illegal, without the argument becoming hopelessly circular.
Could a reasonable person have genuinely believed that doing something which any reasonable person would find unreasonable was reasonable? Steers to 'no'. So for the defence to have legs they would need to argue they are (or were) *not* a reasonable person. This seems like the basic logic but I'm sure in practice there are many nuances. Eg which way the burden lies is crucial.
Don't forget it's up to the jury*. So any whip claiming that it was their reasonable belief that such corrupt pressure was OK, is going to be taking something of a risk.
*See also statue topplers...
Yes indeed it is up to the jury and in my limited experience (four cases) I should say they vary enormously. A lot turns on the qualty and intelligence of the jurors. We astonished one court by finding a defendant guilty even though technically the evidence for the crime in question was lacking. The view was taken however that he was definitely up to something and knew what he was doing and that it was illegal. We just weren't going to let him get away with it and found him guilty anyway, technicalities notwithstanding.
By contrast one plainly guilty defendant got off because most of the jurors were extraordinarily stupid and the rest just wanted to go home early. (The judge in this case took the unusual step of detaining us while he gave the abject defendant a good talking to.)
When you've sat on a few cases you do begin to appreciate just how variable and unpredictable juries are. They would certainly be within the rights to decide that blackmail or not, threatening an MP in the way Wakefield describes is just not on.
I’m pretty sure such a threat would amount to blackmail. If a whip can genuinely claim they they can make such plain threats to the well-being of constituents without jeopardy (which seems implausible), then there ought to be an amendment to the law.
If the whip said that it was “implicit” (haha) that he was referring to the chances that if Boris went that a new leader such as Sunak would turn off the money taps and therefore there would not be the spending on the MPs local school or indeed that the Tories would lose the next election this also threatening that the funding would not be available then would that give the wriggle room to say it’s not blackmail but pointing out potential hazards that the MP needs to consider……
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We'd be in a far better position had we started this a decade back. As you know, it's one political issue I strongly agree with you on.
Tidal barrages would be a useful addition to the power supply mix, but IMO MM is over-egging the pudding. Schemes large enough to make a massive difference are problematic and hyper-expensive in their own right.
Stop buying the nuclear industry hype - they really aren't. For example, the tidal lagoon in Cardiff would have a capital cost of a third of that of Hinkley C, for an almost identical power output - and would last at least twice as long, probably far longer. Without the massive cost of dismantling them at the end of their productive life.
Plus you have a facility that revitalises a rundown area, full of amenity space. Unlike the nuclear plants, that need a force of armed soldiers to stop people getting anywhere near them.
And in Cardiff, you have the benefit of 650 acres of land to the east of the city that currently floods being turned into developable land.
I am not buying the 'nuclear industry hype' - and it's interesting that that is your opening gambit.
I studied geological engineering, and have a slight background in civil engineering, so I'm in the dangerous position of having a little knowledge.
But as a general rule: massive schemes have massive costs, and cost overruns are also often massive - particularly when a scheme is novel. And every large tidal barrage is novel for geological reasons (as are dams). Just look at the Malpasset Dam disaster for an example of that.
Jeezo, Louis de Bernières aint the brightest bulb in the box.
Cost of living crisis: food grown in Lincolnshire should be sold in Lincolnshire.
Well, not sure what he has done to deserve your ire, but having a read a few of his excellent books and thinking of the contrast to the often incoherent and none too intellectual rubbish that you write, I suspect that he is a considerably "brighter bulb" than yourself.
I'm not sure why you assiduously stalk the posts of several PBers on here, but there you go, life's a mystery innit.
Don't flatter yourself. I dont stalk anyone, but if I occasionally pop in and see someone write some sort of biased crap I am not going to leave it unchallenged. The fact that you write inarticulate biased crap on a regular basis means that I might comment on yours more often. de Bernieres is one of the brightest and best authors of his generation IMO, and one of my favourites, so when someone who clearly has the cultural understanding of an amoeba such as yourself writes something that is such demonstrable nonsense then I will comment. Have a lovely day.
I quite liked Captain Correlli's Mandolin but found the later stuff really tailed off. Did think about re-reading CCM just to check if I still thought it was ok, but now I know Louis has the Nige imprimatur I don't think I'll bother.
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
Yes, Biden's comment was weird and dangerous - I can't imagine what he was thinking.
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Biden’s as dangerous as Trump, possibly even worse as Putin would have been worried about the unpredictability of Trump’s response.
If Russia takes Ukraine, there will definitely be an armed NATO presence right on their border.
Western nations shovelling weapons to Ukraine, will make a massive difference to their ability to defend themselves.
Germany right now are looking like appeasers of Putin. Someone, maybe even a deniable group of Westerners, are about to put a big hole in that pipeline if Putin tries to march to Kiev.
Donald Trump was the most predictable US president in history. In any situation he'd behave like an arsehole. He was also right up the aforesaid of Vladimir Putin. We should be immeasurably relieved he has no role in this crisis. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Yes, definitely agree with that. Biden may be a doddering old fool, yet he's a significant improvement on Trump.
Doddering, certainly, but not a complete fool. He seems to realise what's at stake, and has acted fairly quickly on Ukraine. And the foolish gaffe was nonetheless a reflection of reality - the scale of response will be determined by the scale of any incursion.
I seem alone - and so I guess I'm probably wrong - in just not seeing Biden's comment as any big deal at all. It's obvious that the response to Russia's aggression towards Ukraine will be guided by the nature and the scale of the aggression. Of course he could have said something like, "They touch a hair on Ukraine's head and there'll be fire and fury like the world has never seen." Great, but would this have impacted Putin's calculus? Does he form his view on what the US position is from Biden domestic press conferences? Or does he derive it from his geopolitical sense and information gleaned from intel and meetings and diplomatic back channels? Surely the latter. If it were otherwise, dealing with him would be a piece of cake. Just talk tough. Anybody could do it.
Your view on his shooting his senile mouth off is based on nothing more than your political biases. Had Trump uttered the same sentence, you'd be losing your shit over it.
I've explained why I found it clumsy but not a big deal. You're right, though, about me having a different reaction to the same sentence from Trump. My expectations there were rock bottom so I'd have been relieved and pretty impressed by it from him.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We'd be in a far better position had we started this a decade back. As you know, it's one political issue I strongly agree with you on.
Tidal barrages would be a useful addition to the power supply mix, but IMO MM is over-egging the pudding. Schemes large enough to make a massive difference are problematic and hyper-expensive in their own right.
Stop buying the nuclear industry hype - they really aren't. For example, the tidal lagoon in Cardiff would have a capital cost of a third of that of Hinkley C, for an almost identical power output - and would last at least twice as long, probably far longer. Without the massive cost of dismantling them at the end of their productive life.
Plus you have a facility that revitalises a rundown area, full of amenity space. Unlike the nuclear plants, that need a force of armed soldiers to stop people getting anywhere near them.
And in Cardiff, you have the benefit of 650 acres of land to the east of the city that currently floods being turned into developable land.
@MarqueeMark have you noticed any change in the climate toward this with Boris's recent troubles? Sounds like the ideal flashy 'save big dog' sort of project to me.
Comments
Though I'm sure there are exceptions, horses seem to me more dangerous and less rational than your average politician.
And of course it was in general legit, expected and part of the deal that the red wall saw some benefit out of electing bozzer
Or gross in the Franglais.
"It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
It also says:
...However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand....
- the end of the Cold War
- German reunification where even Mrs Thatcher got it wrong
- Saddam Hussein where most of his advisors were advocating caution
He was pro-democracy, unlike say Trump but not weak or starry-eyed about it, unlike Carter or the neo-cons.
Biden's a real Carter.
He seems to realise what's at stake, and has acted fairly quickly on Ukraine.
And the foolish gaffe was nonetheless a reflection of reality - the scale of response will be determined by the scale of any incursion.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-signs-agreement-to-support-enhancement-of-ukrainian-naval-capabilities
Some roughie toughie dick dressed in black with a security high-viz vest on ensuring compliance.
Tossers.
Edit: Though I see others have beaten me to it.
You just need to have the most basic understanding of defence strategy and British geography.
Look at a map, we are a European nation, not a Pacific or Asian nation. Our defence comes first and we are far more likely to be invaded by Putin's Russia than Xi's China.
In any case our major military allies in Europe are France, Poland, Italy and Turkey. Germany decided after WW2 it wanted to be an economic not a military power.
NATO is pivotal to our defence, certainly if Putin seeks to go even beyond Ukraine. AUKUS is nice for us to have but more pivotal to Australia and Japan's defence against China than ours.
I say that as a Tory
It seems an odd way to frame the law. But I suppose demands with menaces - "if you don't do what I want, I'll do something you don't like" - are so common at a petty level in everyday life that the bar has to be set high.
So any whip claiming that it was their reasonable belief that such corrupt pressure was OK, is going to be taking something of a risk.
*See also statue topplers...
They were promised it as part of the political agreement that they are now abrogating.
Though those that survived to tell us aren't much use in the matter...
Cost of living crisis: food grown in Lincolnshire should be sold in Lincolnshire.
A large majority of towns in England have Conservative MPs.
It was of course supposed to be the start of a great eastern motorway...
By contrast one plainly guilty defendant got off because most of the jurors were extraordinarily stupid and the rest just wanted to go home early. (The judge in this case took the unusual step of detaining us while he gave the abject defendant a good talking to.)
When you've sat on a few cases you do begin to appreciate just how variable and unpredictable juries are. They would certainly be within their rights to decide that blackmail or not, threatening an MP in the way Wakefield describes is just not on.
If a whip can genuinely claim they they can make such plain threats to the well-being of constituents without jeopardy (which seems implausible), then there ought to be an amendment to the law.
Without the US in NATO or a mutual defence pact against Russia our interest fades. It's difficult for me to see what we'd get from subsidising Germany's industrial might with our military spending.
Honestly, the idea that either Russia or China would invade the UK is just stupid. If you're seeing it through that lens then it's why you think NATO is vital to the UK. It isn't, though that doesn't mean we should abandon Europe, at least while the US hasn't.
Your last para - yes, I think that's probably it.
And I am surmising that the finance would be coming from the 10 year £1 billion ish export finance package from whatever the ECGD is called now, which is aiui paying for the patrol boats we are supplying / being made in Ukraine, and perhaps the naval base projects.
It may not be likely but a Russian invasion of the UK is far more likely than a Chinese invasion of the UK. NATO therefore does also have a role in protecting us from invasion via mutual self defence amongst European powers and Turkey as well as the US and Canada. Even absent the US we still need NATO therefore for our own defence
'Do the washing-up or you can't go down the pub tonite' is hardly blackmail. 'Support the PM or your constituents don't get their new school' is a bit doubtful. Would depend on the precise circumstances, and the jury perhaps.
"Going to fly this at the match and if I don't get grief I'll tell the lads it's safe to route the march straight through Clydebank on Tuesday."
(apols if I've got the geog wrong, I know little of Glasgow)
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1484613681577144332?s=20
If we want to abandon NATO we therefore need to rebuild our navy to the size it was in 1900 to ensure it and the RAF could hold off the Russian navy and airforce alone
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5375100/
Plus you have a facility that revitalises a rundown area, full of amenity space. Unlike the nuclear plants, that need a force of armed soldiers to stop people getting anywhere near them.
And in Cardiff, you have the benefit of 650 acres of land to the east of the city that currently floods being turned into developable land.
Clydebank like most parts of West of Scotland certainly has its marches. I fear for the return of the marching season this year as the lads in blue and orange have had their craving to stomp triumphantly past Catholic chapels cruelly restricted since Covid struck.
I studied geological engineering, and have a slight background in civil engineering, so I'm in the dangerous position of having a little knowledge.
But as a general rule: massive schemes have massive costs, and cost overruns are also often massive - particularly when a scheme is novel. And every large tidal barrage is novel for geological reasons (as are dams). Just look at the Malpasset Dam disaster for an example of that.
Poster's bit of deniable onanism (4)
NEW THREAD