Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
My Medical School was quite improper, in those hedonistic days of the Eighties...
UCH was fun in the 90s.... and more than half merged with UCL at that point, it seemed
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
My Medical School was quite improper, in those hedonistic days of the Eighties...
In the seventies the medics always swore by neat O2 as a great hangover cure...
I knew a bloke who swore by a litre of iv fluids, and another by guiness on his cornflakes. Hair of the dog really works, but not a route to good health.
Couple of nurses I knew at UCH would start Sunday with iv bags while reading the papers..... Good blokes, but nutters. The pub down the road used to send barman round with a box to pick up the pint glasses that would end up in their flat...
I suspect his future is bleak no matter what he does now. I don't see a good ending for him.
Just watched an old PBS documentary on him. Apparently one of Putin's favorite childhood stories is of a cornered rat, which turned and fought back.
I am not sure backing Putin into a corner is necessarily the wisest move, without preparing and mitigating his response.
Putin likes to tell that story a lot.
He used it to create a persona, which he just might feel he now has to live up to. Dangerous times.
They are. The one thing that does encourage me is the west, in particular US / UK, clearly are getting a lot of leaked real time intel, so they aren't flying totally blind about this thoughts and plans.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
It was the fourth term entrance exam from Oxford: pass that, say the right things at interview and you were in.
They don't do that any more: As and A*s all round.
There was a spate of universities making 2E offers (aka unconditional) a few years back IF you gave them a firm acceptance. The universities liked it because it took the guessing out of working out who was coming, and the candidates were fairly happy as well, but it often meant students ended up on what would otherwise have been a second or third choice for them even if they could have gone somewhere more suitable. Schools and particularly teachers hated it because it was impossible to motivate students to do as well as they could, which affected grades.
Edit to add: Grade inflation is also a thing: my highest offer was 2Cs from Imperial, UCL, and Queen Mary.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
For me this was UCL in the early 80s, and if they really wanted you, after your interview, they offered two E's so you almost certainly said Yes. Or so I understand it
Anyway I am extremely grateful to one of the greatest universities on the planet. which opened up the world for me. I apologise to them for not attending any lectures after my first term, when I realised it literally didn't matter what degree I got
The thing about not attending classes/lectures for an entire year is literally the theme of a reoccurring nightmare of mine, but that's another story.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
My Medical School was quite improper, in those hedonistic days of the Eighties...
In the seventies the medics always swore by neat O2 as a great hangover cure...
Anyways. At the risk of oversharing and maudlin wistfulness... I recently broke up with my partner of 32 years. Been in my own place for six weeks. She came over today, the first time we've seen each other since. We had a lovely day. Long walk to the beach and a light lunch. Not even close to a cross word. Absolutely realised why I loved her. And why we can never live together again. A wonderfully uplifting, yet deeply sad day. We are very good mates. Let's hope that continues. It was a great start.
Many sympathies - many of us have been there, though 32 years is a long time. What I've come to think is that we divide relationships in a binary way that doesn't really fit real life. There's an infinite gradation from couples who aren't happy unless they're together all the time to distant friendships, and one can have a really wonderful friendship with someone without wanting to be permanently married to them. It sounds as though you've hit the right level for both of you - here's to many happy years like that.
Yep. We grew apart. No fault. We just don't want or need the same things anymore.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I envy anyone who was a student in London in the early/mid 80s. There were so many interesting things going on around that time. An "anything is possible" atmosphere.
London was still pretty shitty when I moved there in 1983. Run down, dirty, gritty and at times grim. It transformed completely by the time I left in 1989 full of gentrification, porsches,wine bars and filofaxes, even in Tooting.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
In my day (mid-seventies) "2-Es" qualified you for the local authority grant. To get into Oxford you sat their entrance exam and were interviewed - after that came the offer, or not.
In my student days, 2 "Es" was a good night out... for a week night.
In retrospect it's a miracle I remember any of it at all.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
I suspect his future is bleak no matter what he does now. I don't see a good ending for him.
Just watched an old PBS documentary on him. Apparently one of Putin's favorite childhood stories is of a cornered rat, which turned and fought back.
I am not sure backing Putin into a corner is necessarily the wisest move, without preparing and mitigating his response.
Putin likes to tell that story a lot.
He used it to create a persona, which he just might feel he now has to live up to. Dangerous times.
They are. The one thing that does encourage me is the west, in particular US / UK, clearly are getting a lot of leaked real time intel, so they aren't flying totally blind about this thoughts and plans.
It's exactly the kind of crap you'd put out if you really don't want to be backed into a corner.
Biden keeps calling Putin's bluff, and it's working. Just do it in a very relaxed way so he doesn't have a good excuse to escalate.
I suspect his future is bleak no matter what he does now. I don't see a good ending for him.
Just watched an old PBS documentary on him. Apparently one of Putin's favorite childhood stories is of a cornered rat, which turned and fought back.
I am not sure backing Putin into a corner is necessarily the wisest move, without preparing and mitigating his response.
Putin likes to tell that story a lot.
He used it to create a persona, which he just might feel he now has to live up to. Dangerous times.
They are. The one thing that does encourage me is the west, in particular US / UK, clearly are getting a lot of leaked real time intel, so they aren't flying totally blind about this thoughts and plans.
I hope so, I agree there have been good signs when you look beyond the headlines and the hype. I hope that the careful work is being done and preparations are being made.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Looks as if they were not too good at it then
Naughty, Big G. Though highly tempting, of course......
Which was your Russell Group University, young HY? Presumably not Oxford, or you would have been a Conservative MP by now......
Oxbridge is not Russell Group...
Of course not.. It's not that good....
Russell Group universities take the posh boys who didn't get into Oxford, and try to turn them into human beings. Which is why I wondered about young HY's trajectory......
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Looks as if they were not too good at it then
Naughty, Big G. Though highly tempting, of course......
Which was your Russell Group University, young HY? Presumably not Oxford, or you would have been a Conservative MP by now......
Warwick, though my wife has an Oxford degree.
Actually most Tory MPs do not go to Oxbridge now, the last time they did was as far back as 1997.
Indeed more Tory MPs went to comprehensive schools than independent schools too for the first time in 1997.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
My Medical School was quite improper, in those hedonistic days of the Eighties...
UCH was fun in the 90s.... and more than half merged with UCL at that point, it seemed
I recall UCH bar in the 90's. With some fondness.
SOAS was mental - that basement bar where there was a fog from the ceiling down to about 2 feet off the floor.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Looks as if they were not too good at it then
Naughty, Big G. Though highly tempting, of course......
Which was your Russell Group University, young HY? Presumably not Oxford, or you would have been a Conservative MP by now......
Warwick, though my wife has an Oxford degree.
Actually most Tory MPs do not go to Oxbridge now, the last time they did was as far back as 1997.
Indeed more Tory MPs went to comprehensive schools than independent schools too for the first time in 1997.
Being a Tory MP is not as elitist as it was.
Do you recommend Warwick? Heading there next weekend with son for open day.
Intelligence services have concerns about Lebedev.
Boris intervenes so that Lebedev can join the House of Lords.
Boris also intervenes in government advertising contracts in a way that benefits the Evening Standard.
Nothing to see here?
Boris needs to go. He’s a crook.
You missed the most concerning bit - not just that Boris overruled the security services but that they withdrew their previous assessment of Lebedev.
Why? On what basis? Pressure from the PM? This has shades of the Iraq war and the pressure put on the security services then. So we need to know the full facts.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Intelligence services have concerns about Lebedev.
Boris intervenes so that Lebedev can join the House of Lords.
Boris also intervenes in government advertising contracts in a way that benefits the Evening Standard.
Nothing to see here?
Boris needs to go. He’s a crook.
What I don’t like, it doesn’t really help our security and intelligence forces keep us safe strong fair and free functioning democracy. It doesn’t respect them or their work enough.
The focus is on Tories because they have real leavers of power they can pull to get their way, since 2010. But was it any different before, with Jack Straws problem with rendition flights for example, or Barry Gardiner got 500K for what? Nothing? Laws are laws, Jack Straws, you should think twice about waving away intelligence and security reports Boris if you are putting country ahead of your administration or party. And Barry Gardiner, should a MP that’s clearly been groomed by hostile let alone friendly power be allowed to stand for office again?
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
My Medical School was quite improper, in those hedonistic days of the Eighties...
In the seventies the medics always swore by neat O2 as a great hangover cure...
I knew a bloke who swore by a litre of iv fluids, and another by guiness on his cornflakes. Hair of the dog really works, but not a route to good health.
Couple of nurses I knew at UCH would start Sunday with iv bags while reading the papers..... Good blokes, but nutters. The pub down the road used to send barman round with a box to pick up the pint glasses that would end up in their flat...
Drugs were seriously frowned upon at Medical School, I barely touched them after sixth form. Serious drinking was almost compulsory though. As well as the med school, we had nursing, pharmacy, dental, radiography, physio and OT students too, and a real party culture to cope with a fairly brutal life.
I met Mrs Foxy when she was 23 and regularly in charge of a surgical ward with a death nearly every day. Partying was the way to cope.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Looks as if they were not too good at it then
Naughty, Big G. Though highly tempting, of course......
Which was your Russell Group University, young HY? Presumably not Oxford, or you would have been a Conservative MP by now......
Warwick
Oooh....White Tile.......
School took us there for a look-see - seemed like a nice campus.
Anyways. At the risk of oversharing and maudlin wistfulness... I recently broke up with my partner of 32 years. Been in my own place for six weeks. She came over today, the first time we've seen each other since. We had a lovely day. Long walk to the beach and a light lunch. Not even close to a cross word. Absolutely realised why I loved her. And why we can never live together again. A wonderfully uplifting, yet deeply sad day. We are very good mates. Let's hope that continues. It was a great start.
Good for you.
I've tried being friends with my exes, but it never seems to work out. In my experience it's OK at first, but becomes much more painful when one of you moves on and finds someone else. But if you're OK with that, and you truly value them as a friend, there's no need to be enemies.
I manage an at-arms-length with one or two people from my past, but it's limited to the occasional (i.e once or twice a year) email or text. Anything more than that and I struggle with the unresolved emotions.
Thanks. Early days so we'll see. Today went better than I could have expected. So we'll see.
Best of luck. It's the mark of true maturity to manage friendship with an ex, which I suppose means I've never properly grown up.
The other night, when the Russians were shelling that nuclear power plant (I still find it hard to believe I'm writing that sentence), I had a sudden moment where I realised I didn't want to die without telling (an ex) how much I still loved her. Then I remember she moved on a long time ago, and I felt sad.
Intelligence services have concerns about Lebedev.
Boris intervenes so that Lebedev can join the House of Lords.
Boris also intervenes in government advertising contracts in a way that benefits the Evening Standard.
Nothing to see here?
Boris needs to go. He’s a crook.
What I don’t like, it doesn’t really help our security and intelligence forces keep us safe strong fair and free functioning democracy. It doesn’t respect them or their work enough.
The focus is on Tories because they have real leavers of power they can pull to get their way, since 2010. But was it any different before, with Jack Straws problem with rendition flights for example, or Barry Gardiner got 500K for what? Nothing? Laws are laws, Jack Straws, you should think twice about waving away intelligence and security reports Boris if you are putting country ahead of your administration or party. And Barry Gardiner, should a MP that’s clearly been groomed by hostile let alone friendly power be allowed to stand for office again?
PB's favourite Lib Dem reflexively deflecting from [checks notes] the Conservatives.
Intelligence services have concerns about Lebedev.
Boris intervenes so that Lebedev can join the House of Lords.
Boris also intervenes in government advertising contracts in a way that benefits the Evening Standard.
Nothing to see here?
Boris needs to go. He’s a crook.
You missed the most concerning bit - not just that Boris overruled the security services but that they withdrew their previous assessment of Lebedev.
Why? On what basis? Pressure from the PM? This has shades of the Iraq war and the pressure put on the security services then. So we need to know the full facts.
Certainly sounds like someone pretty high up really is one of Putin's more-useful idiots . . .
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
My Medical School was quite improper, in those hedonistic days of the Eighties...
UCH was fun in the 90s.... and more than half merged with UCL at that point, it seemed
I recall UCH bar in the 90's. With some fondness.
SOAS was mental - that basement bar where there was a fog from the ceiling down to about 2 feet off the floor.
You were there? Pool games took longer than normal... Chris was bar manager.
Intelligence services have concerns about Lebedev.
Boris intervenes so that Lebedev can join the House of Lords.
Boris also intervenes in government advertising contracts in a way that benefits the Evening Standard.
Nothing to see here?
Boris needs to go. He’s a crook.
You missed the most concerning bit - not just that Boris overruled the security services but that they withdrew their previous assessment of Lebedev.
Why? On what basis? Pressure from the PM? This has shades of the Iraq war and the pressure put on the security services then. So we need to know the full facts.
Every day it’s a new revelation. How can just one person do so many daft and damaging things in the space of just two years 🤷♀️
A tweet thread on why we are almost certainly overestimating the amount of strength the Russian Army has on hand, and the amount they can actually get to Ukraine when their first force losses get so high that it starts becoming combat ineffective. Yes, its logistics. @BoringWar
The wendover productions linked down below was excellent on this.
The well trained, well equipped Ukrainian SoF do seem to be causing havoc to the supply lines.
I watched the wendover video. What I thought was interesting was what it said about where the Russians were strong - there's potential for them rapidly repairing rail lines, and laying temporary fuel pipelines. Either of these would reduce their reliance on trucks (though both would be vulnerable to sabotage too).
Another thing worth bearing in mind is that the Ukrainian supply lines are in some respects longer than the Russian ones, in that they now stretch from the Polish border in terms of resupply of many weapons, fuel and ammunition.
Again, this reminds me of Vietnam, quite distinctly
The Americans would say "we have pacified areas A, D , X and Z" and show confident maps like those on the left. What they really meant was, "when we last drove through on the main roads, we wiped out any Viet Cong we saw, and no one threatened us, so we moved on"
As soon as they were gone the Vietnamese resistance re-emerged, just as strong
This is what happens if you occupy a country which is fiercely unhappy about being occupied
You have three choices
1. Wipe out literally everyone who is a threat. Like Peak Hitler, or the Roman Empire in a bad mood - eg Judaea
2. Occupy with great armies at enormous expense, as several wealthy empires have done, but Russia is not a great wealthy empire, not any more, and it cannot hold down Ukraine, no more than the puissant USA could win in Vietnam
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Looks as if they were not too good at it then
Naughty, Big G. Though highly tempting, of course......
Which was your Russell Group University, young HY? Presumably not Oxford, or you would have been a Conservative MP by now......
Warwick, though my wife has an Oxford degree.
Actually most Tory MPs do not go to Oxbridge now, the last time they did was as far back as 1997.
Indeed more Tory MPs went to comprehensive schools than independent schools too for the first time in 1997.
Being a Tory MP is not as elitist as it was.
Do you recommend Warwick? Heading there next weekend with son for open day.
I did a Masters course there. It's quite a good Uni, and a relaxed campus. I enjoyed it but PG courses are a bit different.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Looks as if they were not too good at it then
Naughty, Big G. Though highly tempting, of course......
Which was your Russell Group University, young HY? Presumably not Oxford, or you would have been a Conservative MP by now......
Warwick, though my wife has an Oxford degree.
Actually most Tory MPs do not go to Oxbridge now, the last time they did was as far back as 1997.
Indeed more Tory MPs went to comprehensive schools than independent schools too for the first time in 1997.
Being a Tory MP is not as elitist as it was.
Do you recommend Warwick? Heading there next weekend with son for open day.
Yes, I had a good time.
Close to a big city in Coventry, a nice spa town in Leamington where I lived and historic Warwick. ' Made some good friends and had excellent lecturers and tutors too
Analysis of what more can be learned from the shoot down of a Russian helicopter:
Alright, it is time to take off my "Mud & Truck Maintenance" ball cap & put on my "Old Crow" Bennie with rotating radar aerial and evaluate for you this Ukrainian missile engagement of a Russian Air Force Hind Helicopter. 1/
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
My Medical School was quite improper, in those hedonistic days of the Eighties...
In the seventies the medics always swore by neat O2 as a great hangover cure...
I knew a bloke who swore by a litre of iv fluids, and another by guiness on his cornflakes. Hair of the dog really works, but not a route to good health.
Couple of nurses I knew at UCH would start Sunday with iv bags while reading the papers..... Good blokes, but nutters. The pub down the road used to send barman round with a box to pick up the pint glasses that would end up in their flat...
Drugs were seriously frowned upon at Medical School, I barely touched them after sixth form. Serious drinking was almost compulsory though. As well as the med school, we had nursing, pharmacy, dental, radiography, physio and OT students too, and a real party culture to cope with a fairly brutal life.
I met Mrs Foxy when she was 23 and regularly in charge of a surgical ward with a death nearly every day. Partying was the way to cope.
Everyone smoked weed/hash - nothing stronger. They all drank like fish, though. A number became alcoholics - one of the two nurses I mentioned above died of a heart attack, years later, after being repeatedly told to get off the booze. Dyin' Dave was how everyone knew him....
I was under the impression that Lebedrev was George Osborne's big mate more than Boris.
From wiki:
Then still an MP, Osborne was announced on 17 March 2017 as the next editor of the Evening Standard, a position which he assumed on 2 May.[135][136] Critics of his appointment questioned his lack of journalistic experience and his intention to remain MP for Tatton during his tenure with the newspaper, which other MPs said would constitute a conflict of interest and devalued the role of an MP.[137] He was also accused of breaking the post-ministerial employment rules of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments by accepting the editorship without the committee's approval.[138]
Private Eye subsequently documented in detail the relationship between Osborne and Standard owner Evgeny Lebedev, who appointed Osborne as editor. During Osborne's time as Chancellor of the Exchequer he regularly pledged Treasury money to Standard charitable campaigns, such as his offer in 2015 to match readers' donations by up to £1.5 million to the Standard's Great Ormond Street Hospital appeal. In September 2015, the newspaper ranked Osborne in joint-first place on its annual 'Progress 1000' list of the most influential people in London. It was also highlighted that, as Chancellor, Osborne failed to tackle the advantageous tax status for so-called non-doms, which Lebedev was understood to benefit from, while Lebedev's paper strongly supported the Conservative Party in the 2015 general election and the Conservatives' candidate Zac Goldsmith in the 2016 London mayoral election.
By an amazing coincidence Osborne was followed as the Evening Standard editor by David Cameron's sister in law.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Imperial? When?
'86, to start '87. I didn't take up the offer.
Sensible move, Imperial can be pretty intense.
It was more the male/female ratio which put me off: about 10:1 at the time.
A tweet thread on why we are almost certainly overestimating the amount of strength the Russian Army has on hand, and the amount they can actually get to Ukraine when their first force losses get so high that it starts becoming combat ineffective. Yes, its logistics. @BoringWar
The wendover productions linked down below was excellent on this.
The well trained, well equipped Ukrainian SoF do seem to be causing havoc to the supply lines.
I watched the wendover video. What I thought was interesting was what it said about where the Russians were strong - there's potential for them rapidly repairing rail lines, and laying temporary fuel pipelines. Either of these would reduce their reliance on trucks (though both would be vulnerable to sabotage too).
Another thing worth bearing in mind is that the Ukrainian supply lines are in some respects longer than the Russian ones, in that they now stretch from the Polish border in terms of resupply of many weapons, fuel and ammunition.
The second paragraph has to be the concern, especially as the Russian's won't play "nice". They will just continue to bomb the crap out of the cities and starve them out.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Looks as if they were not too good at it then
Naughty, Big G. Though highly tempting, of course......
Which was your Russell Group University, young HY? Presumably not Oxford, or you would have been a Conservative MP by now......
Oxbridge is not Russell Group...
Of course not.. It's not that good....
Russell Group universities take the posh boys who didn't get into Oxford, and try to turn them into human beings. Which is why I wondered about young HY's trajectory......
Most Russell Group students, indeed even most Oxford students now, went to state schools.
Yes, I think the second is more accurate and also explains the ambushes of logistics vehicles, which don't really need complex weapons. A rifle, an RPG or even a molotov will do for them.
This site does a pretty good daily update, and seems fairly honest, it needs Google translate:
I was under the impression that Lebedrev was George Osborne's big mate more than Boris.
From wiki:
Then still an MP, Osborne was announced on 17 March 2017 as the next editor of the Evening Standard, a position which he assumed on 2 May.[135][136] Critics of his appointment questioned his lack of journalistic experience and his intention to remain MP for Tatton during his tenure with the newspaper, which other MPs said would constitute a conflict of interest and devalued the role of an MP.[137] He was also accused of breaking the post-ministerial employment rules of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments by accepting the editorship without the committee's approval.[138]
Private Eye subsequently documented in detail the relationship between Osborne and Standard owner Evgeny Lebedev, who appointed Osborne as editor. During Osborne's time as Chancellor of the Exchequer he regularly pledged Treasury money to Standard charitable campaigns, such as his offer in 2015 to match readers' donations by up to £1.5 million to the Standard's Great Ormond Street Hospital appeal. In September 2015, the newspaper ranked Osborne in joint-first place on its annual 'Progress 1000' list of the most influential people in London. It was also highlighted that, as Chancellor, Osborne failed to tackle the advantageous tax status for so-called non-doms, which Lebedev was understood to benefit from, while Lebedev's paper strongly supported the Conservative Party in the 2015 general election and the Conservatives' candidate Zac Goldsmith in the 2016 London mayoral election.
By an amazing coincidence Osborne was followed as the Evening Standard editor by David Cameron's sister in law.
Not the first oligarch Osborne was mates with either:
Osborne's school and university contemporary, financier Nathaniel Rothschild, said in October 2008 that Osborne had tried to solicit a £50,000 donation from the Russian aluminium magnate Oleg Deripaska, which would have been a violation of the law against political donations by foreign citizens.[29][30] Rothschild had hosted Deripaska, Osborne, Peter Mandelson and others at a party in his villa in Corfu. The alleged solicitation of a donation occurred on Deripaska's yacht during the party.
Mandelson and Deripaska had an interesting history as well:
I was under the impression that Lebedrev was George Osborne's big mate more than Boris.
From wiki:
Then still an MP, Osborne was announced on 17 March 2017 as the next editor of the Evening Standard, a position which he assumed on 2 May.[135][136] Critics of his appointment questioned his lack of journalistic experience and his intention to remain MP for Tatton during his tenure with the newspaper, which other MPs said would constitute a conflict of interest and devalued the role of an MP.[137] He was also accused of breaking the post-ministerial employment rules of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments by accepting the editorship without the committee's approval.[138]
Private Eye subsequently documented in detail the relationship between Osborne and Standard owner Evgeny Lebedev, who appointed Osborne as editor. During Osborne's time as Chancellor of the Exchequer he regularly pledged Treasury money to Standard charitable campaigns, such as his offer in 2015 to match readers' donations by up to £1.5 million to the Standard's Great Ormond Street Hospital appeal. In September 2015, the newspaper ranked Osborne in joint-first place on its annual 'Progress 1000' list of the most influential people in London. It was also highlighted that, as Chancellor, Osborne failed to tackle the advantageous tax status for so-called non-doms, which Lebedev was understood to benefit from, while Lebedev's paper strongly supported the Conservative Party in the 2015 general election and the Conservatives' candidate Zac Goldsmith in the 2016 London mayoral election.
By an amazing coincidence Osborne was followed as the Evening Standard editor by David Cameron's sister in law.
Not the first oligarch Osborne was mates with either:
Osborne's school and university contemporary, financier Nathaniel Rothschild, said in October 2008 that Osborne had tried to solicit a £50,000 donation from the Russian aluminium magnate Oleg Deripaska, which would have been a violation of the law against political donations by foreign citizens.[29][30] Rothschild had hosted Deripaska, Osborne, Peter Mandelson and others at a party in his villa in Corfu. The alleged solicitation of a donation occurred on Deripaska's yacht during the party.
Mandelson and Deripaska had an interesting history as well:
Intelligence services have concerns about Lebedev.
Boris intervenes so that Lebedev can join the House of Lords.
Boris also intervenes in government advertising contracts in a way that benefits the Evening Standard.
Nothing to see here?
Boris needs to go. He’s a crook.
You missed the most concerning bit - not just that Boris overruled the security services but that they withdrew their previous assessment of Lebedev.
Why? On what basis? Pressure from the PM? This has shades of the Iraq war and the pressure put on the security services then. So we need to know the full facts.
Every day it’s a new revelation. How can just one person do so many daft and damaging things in the space of just two years 🤷♀️
It's fascinating comparing this with his pretty top draw 3-to-1 interview with Welt, La Repubblica, and El País early Friday morning where he stuck, as he would say assiduously, on message and gave off the tone of someone pretty on top of his brief, compared to this sloppiness. Ben Judah's comments on the Johnson-Zelenskyy relationship (and how Z views him as their best ally) also show that he can be a great statesmen when his churchillian fluids are surging.
If there is a higher entity, I'm going to have cross words with them over their choice to pair an intelligent mind and keen orator with such a lazy, philandering soul.
Intelligence services have concerns about Lebedev.
Boris intervenes so that Lebedev can join the House of Lords.
Boris also intervenes in government advertising contracts in a way that benefits the Evening Standard.
Nothing to see here?
Boris needs to go. He’s a crook.
What I don’t like, it doesn’t really help our security and intelligence forces keep us safe strong fair and free functioning democracy. It doesn’t respect them or their work enough.
The focus is on Tories because they have real leavers of power they can pull to get their way, since 2010. But was it any different before, with Jack Straws problem with rendition flights for example, or Barry Gardiner got 500K for what? Nothing? Laws are laws, Jack Straws, you should think twice about waving away intelligence and security reports Boris if you are putting country ahead of your administration or party. And Barry Gardiner, should a MP that’s clearly been groomed by hostile let alone friendly power be allowed to stand for office again?
PB's favourite Lib Dem reflexively deflecting from [checks notes] the Conservatives.
Again
Seriously? 🤣 I can’t agree with you again Farooq! No one flags up on PB what it is to be right wing but with no time for the Tories and all their party before the country crimes better than me. Sometimes I fear I am not being fair to them just to be pro Lib Dem. In fact, the one you complained about is PRIME example. Deflecting from Conservatives? I failed to mention Lib Dem MP literately in bed with the Russians. 😂
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Imperial? When?
'86, to start '87. I didn't take up the offer.
Sensible move, Imperial can be pretty intense.
Also, a severe lack of women. I have a couple of Imperial College friends even now - but I met them at UCL Union, where they came to escape the nerdy masculine engineer atmosphere of Imperial, and with the often (but not always ) forlorn hopes of getting laid, and the more reliable aspirations of getting stoned, zonked, tripped out, etc
At one point the drug dealing in UCL Union was so overt there was THIS table for uppers, THIS table for weed and hash, THIS table for strange new pills, THIS table for cocaine (posh girls mainly). Only heroin was excluded, but you could buy that from the adult staff - no joke
Big up the London Uni 80's and early 90's love. Wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere else...even King's.
Quite funny reading all this on the day I've signed my first lease in London to move closer to my work. In true KX tradition it's next to a strip club, so I look forward to meeting @Leon on the road outside in the near future.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Imperial? When?
'86, to start '87. I didn't take up the offer.
Sensible move, Imperial can be pretty intense.
I did Biochemistry at Imperial from '94 to '97. Then I stayed on to do a PhD and a post-doc, so I stayed on until 2004!
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Nah, it's all done by Tardis these days so we can know it all for certain, without bias.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Imperial? When?
'86, to start '87. I didn't take up the offer.
Sensible move, Imperial can be pretty intense.
I did Biochemistry at Imperial from '94 to '97. Then I stayed on to do a PhD and a post-doc, so I stayed on until 2004!
So you are both a DIC and an ARCS ( pronounced arse)?
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Imperial? When?
'86, to start '87. I didn't take up the offer.
Sensible move, Imperial can be pretty intense.
Also, a severe lack of women. I have a couple of Imperial College friends even now - but I met them at UCL Union, where they came to escape the nerdy masculine engineer atmosphere of Imperial, and with the often (but not always ) forlorn hopes of getting laid, and the more reliable aspirations of getting stoned, zonked, tripped out, etc
At one point the drug dealing in UCL Union was so overt there was THIS table for uppers, THIS table for weed and hash, THIS table for strange new pills, THIS table for cocaine (posh girls mainly). Only heroin was excluded, but you could buy that from the adult staff - no joke
And this was at lunchtime. Fuck, it was mad
Lordy. During my student days sharing a vial of amyl nitrite was regarded as underground.
My mum is so 💜 with Mail on Sunday, I just know she’ll text me in morning to say “it’s alright Jade, Bojo has a six point plan, he’s going to win the war.”
Briefing that you plan it to be his Falklands moment seems like it would have the opposite effect.
A tweet thread on why we are almost certainly overestimating the amount of strength the Russian Army has on hand, and the amount they can actually get to Ukraine when their first force losses get so high that it starts becoming combat ineffective. Yes, its logistics. @BoringWar
The wendover productions linked down below was excellent on this.
The well trained, well equipped Ukrainian SoF do seem to be causing havoc to the supply lines.
I watched the wendover video. What I thought was interesting was what it said about where the Russians were strong - there's potential for them rapidly repairing rail lines, and laying temporary fuel pipelines. Either of these would reduce their reliance on trucks (though both would be vulnerable to sabotage too).
Another thing worth bearing in mind is that the Ukrainian supply lines are in some respects longer than the Russian ones, in that they now stretch from the Polish border in terms of resupply of many weapons, fuel and ammunition.
The second paragraph has to be the concern, especially as the Russian's won't play "nice". They will just continue to bomb the crap out of the cities and starve them out.
In modern warfare, temporary pipelines and railways are staggeringly vulnerable - fixed targets.
Pipelines, in particular - these aren't just hoses laid across the countryside. This is heavy pipe, with massive pumping stations required every few miles. One break....
They can only be used in territory that you 100% control.....
Yes, I think the second is more accurate and also explains the ambushes of logistics vehicles, which don't really need complex weapons. A rifle, an RPG or even a molotov will do for them.
This site does a pretty good daily update, and seems fairly honest, it needs Google translate:
A tweet thread on why we are almost certainly overestimating the amount of strength the Russian Army has on hand, and the amount they can actually get to Ukraine when their first force losses get so high that it starts becoming combat ineffective. Yes, its logistics. @BoringWar
The wendover productions linked down below was excellent on this.
The well trained, well equipped Ukrainian SoF do seem to be causing havoc to the supply lines.
I watched the wendover video. What I thought was interesting was what it said about where the Russians were strong - there's potential for them rapidly repairing rail lines, and laying temporary fuel pipelines. Either of these would reduce their reliance on trucks (though both would be vulnerable to sabotage too).
Another thing worth bearing in mind is that the Ukrainian supply lines are in some respects longer than the Russian ones, in that they now stretch from the Polish border in terms of resupply of many weapons, fuel and ammunition.
The second paragraph has to be the concern, especially as the Russian's won't play "nice". They will just continue to bomb the crap out of the cities and starve them out.
Weirdly, there's now a valid question over whether they will have the supply chain to do so. The current lulls in fighting are because Russia's advance have run out of steam and are having to re-stock.
My mum is so 💜 with Mail on Sunday, I just know she’ll text me in morning to say “it’s alright Jade, Bojo has a six point plan, he’s going to win the war.”
Briefing that you plan it to be his Falklands moment seems like it would have the opposite effect.
Note, it doesn’t specify which side of the Falklands conflict. Maybe Boris fancies being Galtieri?
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Imperial? When?
'86, to start '87. I didn't take up the offer.
Sensible move, Imperial can be pretty intense.
Also, a severe lack of women. I have a couple of Imperial College friends even now - but I met them at UCL Union, where they came to escape the nerdy masculine engineer atmosphere of Imperial, and with the often (but not always ) forlorn hopes of getting laid, and the more reliable aspirations of getting stoned, zonked, tripped out, etc
At one point the drug dealing in UCL Union was so overt there was THIS table for uppers, THIS table for weed and hash, THIS table for strange new pills, THIS table for cocaine (posh girls mainly). Only heroin was excluded, but you could buy that from the adult staff - no joke
And this was at lunchtime. Fuck, it was mad
Lordy. During my student days sharing a vial of amyl nitrite was regarded as underground.
To be fair, in my third year there was a significant clampdown, mainly because UCLU got so notorious students were coming down from Manc and Newcastle and Scotland to get high
Several of the major dealers were close friends and at least one of them is still alive, I see him every Christmas
I don't really get much useful information from the second map. You'd need to have recent Ukrainian army movements on it too, so that you could see where the Ukrainians were still able to move around, and if that crossed any of the Russian lines, or not.
I think in order to get an accurate picture you would need more information than either side would want to admit to having in terms of troop positions. I think the best that can be done is probably to emphasise control of urban areas, and the transport links between them. In practice, if one side holds three urban areas that are vertices of a triangle, and the roads between them, then you may as well colour in the triangle, and it would give you a reasonable summary of the situation.
I do like this notion of "factual history" being bandied about. One of the things I find most interesting about aechaeology is how often it demonstrates that the "facts" of "factual history" can't quite be right...
History is simply stories that have survived the passage of time. We have limited means of telling how factual these stories are, and none for determining their degree of completeness.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Imperial? When?
'86, to start '87. I didn't take up the offer.
Sensible move, Imperial can be pretty intense.
I did Biochemistry at Imperial from '94 to '97. Then I stayed on to do a PhD and a post-doc, so I stayed on until 2004!
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered. Who is going to invest in Russian kit and training now if they have a choice? If I was India I’d now be terrified of the quality of that Russian crap they’ve been buying.
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Here is an entIrely serious question. As Russia has not formally declared war and considers what it is doing to be a police action, and the Ukrainians are fighting a defensive action without ever having formally declared war either, are the combatants covered by the Geneva Convention?
As I am not a lawyer, I'm asking because I want to know the answer.
I wondered if the Falklands War at least (where war was never formally declared) should provide precedent, but in that case Britain had a UN Resolution covering its actions, which Ukraine does not. So I'm not sure it does.
The Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions cover the activities of combattants in irregular wars.
PS Here is a good basic overview of the legal situation covering the Ukraine Special Military Operations.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered. Who is going to invest in Russian kit and training now if they have a choice? If I was India I’d now be terrified of the quality of that Russian crap they’ve been buying.
They really, really don't love the Russian nuclear subs they've experienced.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered.
Are we 100% sure of that? Not that I consider him to be in a position to be a perfect judge, but if we believe Dura Ace there doesn't seem to be any part of armed forces that are properly supplied, equipped or trained, or if there are any bits that are so they are too small.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered. Who is going to invest in Russian kit and training now if they have a choice? If I was India I’d now be terrified of the quality of that Russian crap they’ve been buying.
They really, really don't love the Russian nuclear subs they've experienced.
My mum is so 💜 with Mail on Sunday, I just know she’ll text me in morning to say “it’s alright Jade, Bojo has a six point plan, he’s going to win the war.”
I still think there are plenty of Tory MPs who won't see that last word...
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered. Who is going to invest in Russian kit and training now if they have a choice? If I was India I’d now be terrified of the quality of that Russian crap they’ve been buying.
It’s not that the Russian kit is crap per se, it just seems that Putin let corruption hollow out maintenance and training in the Russian armed forces who then failed to properly set up their logistics because they believed their own propaganda of a “short, victorious war” (a phrase coined by the Czarist interior minister Plevhe before the equally disastrous Russo—Japanese War). After all, much of the Ukrainians’ kit is ex-Soviet or post-Soviet Russian and they seem to be handling it pretty well!
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered.
Are we 100% sure of that? Not that I consider him to be in a position to be a perfect judge, but if we believe Dura Ace there doesn't seem to be any part of armed forces that are properly supplied, equipped or trained, or if there are any bits that are so they are too small.
Depends where we're fighting I guess. If it's on UK/French soil there's no question, but on neutral soil you'd expect the Russians to win via sheer numbers. There's already photographic evidence of Russia losing the equivalent of 50% of all UK tanks, and probably not far off that figure of AFVs.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered.
Are we 100% sure of that? Not that I consider him to be in a position to be a perfect judge, but if we believe Dura Ace there doesn't seem to be any part of armed forces that are properly supplied, equipped or trained, or if there are any bits that are so they are too small.
All militaries are like that to an extent - it's just that the Russians appear to be winning the "most decrepit, falling apart pile of disorganised fuckups" thing hands down.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered. Who is going to invest in Russian kit and training now if they have a choice? If I was India I’d now be terrified of the quality of that Russian crap they’ve been buying.
India is building her own aircraft carrier at the mo:
I don't know much about military matters, but at the moment on top of issues of lack of funding aren't there also big ongoing problems with things like the F35s, the US mega new aircraft carrier doesn't work etc.
My mum is so 💜 with Mail on Sunday, I just know she’ll text me in morning to say “it’s alright Jade, Bojo has a six point plan, he’s going to win the war.”
Briefing that you plan it to be his Falklands moment seems like it would have the opposite effect.
At least it’s better than having someone full tonto living in a fantasy land.
I don't really get much useful information from the second map. You'd need to have recent Ukrainian army movements on it too, so that you could see where the Ukrainians were still able to move around, and if that crossed any of the Russian lines, or not.
I think in order to get an accurate picture you would need more information than either side would want to admit to having in terms of troop positions. I think the best that can be done is probably to emphasise control of urban areas, and the transport links between them. In practice, if one side holds three urban areas that are vertices of a triangle, and the roads between them, then you may as well colour in the triangle, and it would give you a reasonable summary of the situation.
This map is also good, and updated regularly. It shows Ukranian positions too.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered.
Are we 100% sure of that? Not that I consider him to be in a position to be a perfect judge, but if we believe Dura Ace there doesn't seem to be any part of armed forces that are properly supplied, equipped or trained, or if there are any bits that are so they are too small.
It's all relative isn't it? The UK forces are good in parts but horribly unbalanced, lacking in support functions and not able to deploy a 100% capable force without significant help from the US. We have no strategic autonomy and appear to be chilled about that,
Depending on how things pan out the conclusion the government may be tempted to draw is that the Russians are so woeful we can comfortably cut defence spending again.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered. Who is going to invest in Russian kit and training now if they have a choice? If I was India I’d now be terrified of the quality of that Russian crap they’ve been buying.
It looks like they haven't been maintaining their equipment and supplies properly over the last 5 years or so. Food packs were found by the Ukraianians with use-by dates of 2015 for example.
Intelligence services have concerns about Lebedev.
Boris intervenes so that Lebedev can join the House of Lords.
Boris also intervenes in government advertising contracts in a way that benefits the Evening Standard.
Nothing to see here?
Boris needs to go. He’s a crook.
What I don’t like, it doesn’t really help our security and intelligence forces keep us safe strong fair and free functioning democracy. It doesn’t respect them or their work enough.
The focus is on Tories because they have real leavers of power they can pull to get their way, since 2010. But was it any different before, with Jack Straws problem with rendition flights for example, or Barry Gardiner got 500K for what? Nothing? Laws are laws, Jack Straws, you should think twice about waving away intelligence and security reports Boris if you are putting country ahead of your administration or party. And Barry Gardiner, should a MP that’s clearly been groomed by hostile let alone friendly power be allowed to stand for office again?
PB's favourite Lib Dem reflexively deflecting from [checks notes] the Conservatives.
Again
When was I voted PBs favourite Libdem? I must have missed that thread. You mean Farooq’s favourite Libdem don’t you, despite my attempts to post as fair and balanced as possible annoys you cause you can’t do it? 😆 maybe you lean towards Labour and don’t like me reminding of their crimes too? Tough, I hate Labour and hate socialism.
In my original post you didn’t like, I’m taking the side of intelligence and security people versus stupid and greedy behaviour of many MPs of all parties for decades. To use your again phrase, I have often posted this same position again and again.
Cyclefree also makes comparison to what it appears Boris done here, interchangeable to the similar crimes of the Blair years. And to be honest with you Farooq, to be strong poster in this story, that’s exactly how we should compare it. Enjoy your nights rest 🙋♀️
PS it is in the Sunday Times by the way. There’s all manner of stories running behind the blanket coverage of this war That is relentlessly hollowing out Boris and the Tories isn’t there?
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered. Who is going to invest in Russian kit and training now if they have a choice? If I was India I’d now be terrified of the quality of that Russian crap they’ve been buying.
It looks like they haven't been maintaining their equipment and supplies properly over the last 5 years or so. Food packs were found by the Ukraianians with use-by dates of 2015 for example.
There was an article written early in this that suggested that a big issue was that the reformist, anti-corruption Russian Defense Minister was chased out in 2012. The current guy is an old friend of Putin and loved by the thieves.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered. Who is going to invest in Russian kit and training now if they have a choice? If I was India I’d now be terrified of the quality of that Russian crap they’ve been buying.
It looks like they haven't been maintaining their equipment and supplies properly over the last 5 years or so. Food packs were found by the Ukraianians with use-by dates of 2015 for example.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Imperial? When?
'86, to start '87. I didn't take up the offer.
Sensible move, Imperial can be pretty intense.
I did Biochemistry at Imperial from '94 to '97. Then I stayed on to do a PhD and a post-doc, so I stayed on until 2004!
Were you living there most of the time?
My friends at other universities also seemed to be having a good time. The Eighties were pretty hedonistic after the initial economic slump and mass unemployment of Maggies first term.
Indeed I used to go for a weekend at Keele University every term or so as their Union ran great nights out, and much cheaper than London.
London is a great place to be if you are time rich and financially rich. Otherwise it's like being a stray cat looking through a fishmongers window.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Are there any improper Russell Group Universities?
If so, which?
King's London
2 E's are all you need. King's College, King's College.
UCL wanted two Cs from me...
Two E's from me. After that my A Levels were a hoot, I knew I couldn't fail. Quite joyous
Also, UCL was a totally brilliant uni to study at, as a provincial lad in the 80s. It was snooty and elite enough to be confidence-inducing (yay, I made it here!), yet also challenging and fascinating and urban. A world class university with no Durhamite inferiority complex to Oxbridge, yet also in the middle of fucking London!
My halls of residence for about 2 and a half years were in London W1 or WC1, places it would cost you millions to live in, now
At the same time it had a gritty London edge. Absurdly druggy and wildly bohemian. Brilliant place
I fear it is somewhat neutered and full of wonderfully diligent East Asian students who don't add to the social life, these days. We had a bloody riot
I too went with a 2 E offer.
If I want to depress a Y13 class I tell them the about the 2C offers: then that I went with one which was a bit lower.
And yes, it made the last two terms absolutely the best of the whole time at school; my main memory of the exams is playing croquet on a very bumpy bit of grass between papers.
What was the story with a 2Es offer? I know Oxbridge offers you that if you pass their own exam. Was this a similar arrangement or had grade inflation not kicked in?
The ludicrously low offers (such as I received) were given to people with very high predicted grades - the group of people I was with when this happened were all predicted As with a smattering of Bs. Back in the 90s (when this happened) Oxbridge was 3 As. Three Bs at A level was quite a respectable achievement.
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
At Imperial there were about twenty or so prospective Physics students all up at the same time in early December for "interview". We had a lecture on how much better Imperial was than Oxford/Cambridge (delete as appropriate) and then the speaker made every one in the room a 2C offer.
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
Imperial? When?
'86, to start '87. I didn't take up the offer.
Sensible move, Imperial can be pretty intense.
I did Biochemistry at Imperial from '94 to '97. Then I stayed on to do a PhD and a post-doc, so I stayed on until 2004!
It also occurs to me that the UK's defence challenges are similar to Russia's but not on the same scale. In both cases the country's locus of identity is focused on its past martial glories. This prevents pragmatic decision making on defence issues as the superpower cosplay has to go on to the great detriment of other capabilities.
Imagine the career prospects of a senior RAF officer who militated for a Bayraktar acquisition - a pragmatic decision. Not only is Bayraktar not big, complex or expensive enough but, what's worse it's designed and built in Turkey. They couldn't possibly know more about how to develop a UAS than the UK where we have the best scientists and engineers in the world...
It also occurs to me that the UK's defence challenges are similar to Russia's but not on the same scale. In both cases the country's locus of identity is focused on its past martial glories. This prevents pragmatic decision making on defence issues as the superpower cosplay has to go on to the great detriment of other capabilities.
Imagine the career prospects of a senior RAF officer who militated for a Bayraktar acquisition - a pragmatic decision. Not only is Bayraktar not big, complex or expensive enough but, what's worse it's designed and built in Turkey. They couldn't possibly know more about how to develop a UAS than the UK where we have the best scientists and engineers in the world...
You mean can’t achieve gold plated dreams with tin pot money, but it becomes tin pot money for each items, and eventual item reflects that, because there’s too many big, gold plated dreams?
It also occurs to me that the UK's defence challenges are similar to Russia's but not on the same scale. In both cases the country's locus of identity is focused on its past martial glories. This prevents pragmatic decision making on defence issues as the superpower cosplay has to go on to the great detriment of other capabilities.
Imagine the career prospects of a senior RAF officer who militated for a Bayraktar acquisition - a pragmatic decision. Not only is Bayraktar not big, complex or expensive enough but, what's worse it's designed and built in Turkey. They couldn't possibly know more about how to develop a UAS than the UK where we have the best scientists and engineers in the world...
Definitely, our difference is Suez. We got humbled relatively early and pivoted to acting in tandem with other nations. Russia can't even get their vassal states to join in.
That being said, after the Armenia war and this, the case for a relatively cheap drones (3.5 TB2 =~ 1 Challenger tank/15 Javelins/0.05 Typhoons) is completely unarguable, and needs to be a priority.
It also occurs to me that the UK's defence challenges are similar to Russia's but not on the same scale. In both cases the country's locus of identity is focused on its past martial glories. This prevents pragmatic decision making on defence issues as the superpower cosplay has to go on to the great detriment of other capabilities.
Imagine the career prospects of a senior RAF officer who militated for a Bayraktar acquisition - a pragmatic decision. Not only is Bayraktar not big, complex or expensive enough but, what's worse it's designed and built in Turkey. They couldn't possibly know more about how to develop a UAS than the UK where we have the best scientists and engineers in the world...
Definitely, our difference is Suez. We got humbled relatively early and pivoted to acting in tandem with other nations. Russia can't even get their vassal states to join in.
That being said, after the Armenia war and this, the case for a relatively cheap drones (3.5 TB2 =~ 1 Challenger tank/15 Javelins/0.05 Typhoons) is completely unarguable, and needs to be a priority.
Stepping back from all the misery and horror for a moment, it seems the RU military have taught US/NATO exactly how to deal with them, thanks to the brave Ukr.
Putin's top generals must be incandescent that their machine has been exposed to so much analysis in a true battle setting and been found wanting.
It also occurs to me that the UK's defence challenges are similar to Russia's but not on the same scale. In both cases the country's locus of identity is focused on its past martial glories. This prevents pragmatic decision making on defence issues as the superpower cosplay has to go on to the great detriment of other capabilities.
Imagine the career prospects of a senior RAF officer who militated for a Bayraktar acquisition - a pragmatic decision. Not only is Bayraktar not big, complex or expensive enough but, what's worse it's designed and built in Turkey. They couldn't possibly know more about how to develop a UAS than the UK where we have the best scientists and engineers in the world...
The designer worked at MIT for a while so presumably there's some US know-how there. [BTW, I note he is married to Erdogan's daughter]
But you are obviously correct. We clearly won't need F35s to shoot down Russians, so what exactly are they for? China? Really? The French, perhaps?
A fleet of similar drones with a bit more stealth is more than enough to hit things from the air.
It also occurs to me that the UK's defence challenges are similar to Russia's but not on the same scale. In both cases the country's locus of identity is focused on its past martial glories. This prevents pragmatic decision making on defence issues as the superpower cosplay has to go on to the great detriment of other capabilities.
Imagine the career prospects of a senior RAF officer who militated for a Bayraktar acquisition - a pragmatic decision. Not only is Bayraktar not big, complex or expensive enough but, what's worse it's designed and built in Turkey. They couldn't possibly know more about how to develop a UAS than the UK where we have the best scientists and engineers in the world...
Definitely, our difference is Suez. We got humbled relatively early and pivoted to acting in tandem with other nations. Russia can't even get their vassal states to join in.
That being said, after the Armenia war and this, the case for a relatively cheap drones (3.5 TB2 =~ 1 Challenger tank/15 Javelins/0.05 Typhoons) is completely unarguable, and needs to be a priority.
We are getting closer to being able to conclude that (absent the nuclear factor) never mind NATO, we or the French could happy kick the arse of the Russian army by ourselves even notionally outnumbered. Who is going to invest in Russian kit and training now if they have a choice? If I was India I’d now be terrified of the quality of that Russian crap they’ve been buying.
It looks like they haven't been maintaining their equipment and supplies properly over the last 5 years or so. Food packs were found by the Ukraianians with use-by dates of 2015 for example.
There was an article written early in this that suggested that a big issue was that the reformist, anti-corruption Russian Defense Minister was chased out in 2012. The current guy is an old friend of Putin and loved by the thieves.
If you run an entire country on lies and reality distortion and corruption don't be surprised when your food packs are five years out of date - Russian proverb.
Comments
With some fondness.
They don't do that any more: As and A*s all round.
There was a spate of universities making 2E offers (aka unconditional) a few years back IF you gave them a firm acceptance. The universities liked it because it took the guessing out of working out who was coming, and the candidates were fairly happy as well, but it often meant students ended up on what would otherwise have been a second or third choice for them even if they could have gone somewhere more suitable.
Schools and particularly teachers hated it because it was impossible to motivate students to do as well as they could, which affected grades.
Edit to add:
Grade inflation is also a thing: my highest offer was 2Cs from Imperial, UCL, and Queen Mary.
In retrospect it's a miracle I remember any of it at all.
He is a rat after all
From talking to people when the actual University course started, people with lower predicted grades didn't get anything like this.
So I presume that this was the University (and Dept.) trying to "lock in" people with high predicted grades.
Biden keeps calling Putin's bluff, and it's working. Just do it in a very relaxed way so he doesn't have a good excuse to escalate.
Russell Group universities take the posh boys who didn't get into Oxford, and try to turn them into human beings. Which is why I wondered about young HY's trajectory......
Actually most Tory MPs do not go to Oxbridge now, the last time they did was as far back as 1997.
Indeed more Tory MPs went to comprehensive schools than independent schools too for the first time in 1997.
Being a Tory MP is not as elitist as it was.
Why? On what basis? Pressure from the PM? This has shades of the Iraq war and the pressure put on the security services then. So we need to know the full facts.
think the visualization teams in many media outlets need to rethink how they map the war.
Most do maps like the one on the left. But that is not reflecting their own reporting. There aren't entire *areas* that are 'under control'.
On the right is a more accurate alternative.
https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1500113886070071303
I think the only question they asked was "tea or coffee?".
The focus is on Tories because they have real leavers of power they can pull to get their way, since 2010. But was it any different before, with Jack Straws problem with rendition flights for example, or Barry Gardiner got 500K for what? Nothing? Laws are laws, Jack Straws, you should think twice about waving away intelligence and security reports Boris if you are putting country ahead of your administration or party. And Barry Gardiner, should a MP that’s clearly been groomed by hostile let alone friendly power be allowed to stand for office again?
I met Mrs Foxy when she was 23 and regularly in charge of a surgical ward with a death nearly every day. Partying was the way to cope.
School took us there for a look-see - seemed like a nice campus.
Again
I didn't take up the offer.
Pool games took longer than normal...
Chris was bar manager.
Another thing worth bearing in mind is that the Ukrainian supply lines are in some respects longer than the Russian ones, in that they now stretch from the Polish border in terms of resupply of many weapons, fuel and ammunition.
The Americans would say "we have pacified areas A, D , X and Z" and show confident maps like those on the left. What they really meant was, "when we last drove through on the main roads, we wiped out any Viet Cong we saw, and no one threatened us, so we moved on"
As soon as they were gone the Vietnamese resistance re-emerged, just as strong
This is what happens if you occupy a country which is fiercely unhappy about being occupied
You have three choices
1. Wipe out literally everyone who is a threat. Like Peak Hitler, or the Roman Empire in a bad mood - eg Judaea
2. Occupy with great armies at enormous expense, as several wealthy empires have done, but Russia is not a great wealthy empire, not any more, and it cannot hold down Ukraine, no more than the puissant USA could win in Vietnam
3. Lose
Close to a big city in Coventry, a nice spa town in Leamington where I lived and historic Warwick.
'
Made some good friends and had excellent lecturers and tutors too
Alright, it is time to take off my "Mud & Truck Maintenance" ball cap & put on my "Old Crow" Bennie with rotating radar aerial and evaluate for you this Ukrainian missile engagement of a Russian Air Force Hind Helicopter.
1/
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1500195524913344527
Wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere else...even King's.
Then still an MP, Osborne was announced on 17 March 2017 as the next editor of the Evening Standard, a position which he assumed on 2 May.[135][136] Critics of his appointment questioned his lack of journalistic experience and his intention to remain MP for Tatton during his tenure with the newspaper, which other MPs said would constitute a conflict of interest and devalued the role of an MP.[137] He was also accused of breaking the post-ministerial employment rules of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments by accepting the editorship without the committee's approval.[138]
Private Eye subsequently documented in detail the relationship between Osborne and Standard owner Evgeny Lebedev, who appointed Osborne as editor. During Osborne's time as Chancellor of the Exchequer he regularly pledged Treasury money to Standard charitable campaigns, such as his offer in 2015 to match readers' donations by up to £1.5 million to the Standard's Great Ormond Street Hospital appeal. In September 2015, the newspaper ranked Osborne in joint-first place on its annual 'Progress 1000' list of the most influential people in London. It was also highlighted that, as Chancellor, Osborne failed to tackle the advantageous tax status for so-called non-doms, which Lebedev was understood to benefit from, while Lebedev's paper strongly supported the Conservative Party in the 2015 general election and the Conservatives' candidate Zac Goldsmith in the 2016 London mayoral election.
By an amazing coincidence Osborne was followed as the Evening Standard editor by David Cameron's sister in law.
The only Oxford colleges where half the students or more still went to private school are Keble, Trinity, Magdalen, Christ Church and Queen's
https://thetab.com/uk/2019/10/04/the-oxbridge-colleges-admitting-the-most-private-school-kids-127451
This site does a pretty good daily update, and seems fairly honest, it needs Google translate:
https://m.censor.net/ua/resonance/3321517/voyina_obstanovka_na_1000_4_marta
Osborne's school and university contemporary, financier Nathaniel Rothschild, said in October 2008 that Osborne had tried to solicit a £50,000 donation from the Russian aluminium magnate Oleg Deripaska, which would have been a violation of the law against political donations by foreign citizens.[29][30] Rothschild had hosted Deripaska, Osborne, Peter Mandelson and others at a party in his villa in Corfu. The alleged solicitation of a donation occurred on Deripaska's yacht during the party.
Mandelson and Deripaska had an interesting history as well:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/oct/27/peter-mandelson-oleg-deripaska
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peter-mandelson-set-for-lucrative-job-at-russian-giant-f05dthgk5xg
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/george-osborne-wins-deal-with-firm-set-up-by-oligarch-linked-to-putin-j8wf30m9z
If there is a higher entity, I'm going to have cross words with them over their choice to pair an intelligent mind and keen orator with such a lazy, philandering soul.
At one point the drug dealing in UCL Union was so overt there was THIS table for uppers, THIS table for weed and hash, THIS table for strange new pills, THIS table for cocaine (posh girls mainly). Only heroin was excluded, but you could buy that from the adult staff - no joke
And this was at lunchtime. Fuck, it was mad
But taking on its face, and this is not my typical reaction, but could he hurry up please.
Pipelines, in particular - these aren't just hoses laid across the countryside. This is heavy pipe, with massive pumping stations required every few miles. One break....
They can only be used in territory that you 100% control.....
Or at least know how to say "Fuck you, Putin" in Ukrainian.
Several of the major dealers were close friends and at least one of them is still alive, I see him every Christmas
I think in order to get an accurate picture you would need more information than either side would want to admit to having in terms of troop positions. I think the best that can be done is probably to emphasise control of urban areas, and the transport links between them. In practice, if one side holds three urban areas that are vertices of a triangle, and the roads between them, then you may as well colour in the triangle, and it would give you a reasonable summary of the situation.
PS Here is a good basic overview of the legal situation covering the Ukraine Special Military Operations.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/23/russia-ukraine-international-law-occupation-armed-conflict-and-human-rights#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)
https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/091194
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arihant-class_submarine
Depending on how things pan out the conclusion the government may be tempted to draw is that the Russians are so woeful we can comfortably cut defence spending again.
In my original post you didn’t like, I’m taking the side of intelligence and security people versus stupid and greedy behaviour of many MPs of all parties for decades. To use your again phrase, I have often posted this same position again and again.
Cyclefree also makes comparison to what it appears Boris done here, interchangeable to the similar crimes of the Blair years. And to be honest with you Farooq, to be strong poster in this story, that’s exactly how we should compare it. Enjoy your nights rest 🙋♀️
PS it is in the Sunday Times by the way. There’s all manner of stories running behind the blanket coverage of this war That is relentlessly hollowing out Boris and the Tories isn’t there?
Indeed I used to go for a weekend at Keele University every term or so as their Union ran great nights out, and much cheaper than London.
London is a great place to be if you are time rich and financially rich. Otherwise it's like being a stray cat looking through a fishmongers window.
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Imagine the career prospects of a senior RAF officer who militated for a Bayraktar acquisition - a pragmatic decision. Not only is Bayraktar not big, complex or expensive enough but, what's worse it's designed and built in Turkey. They couldn't possibly know more about how to develop a UAS than the UK where we have the best scientists and engineers in the world...
That being said, after the Armenia war and this, the case for a relatively cheap drones (3.5 TB2 =~ 1 Challenger tank/15 Javelins/0.05 Typhoons) is completely unarguable, and needs to be a priority.
Wordle 260 3/6
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Putin's top generals must be incandescent that their machine has been exposed to so much analysis in a true battle setting and been found wanting.
But you are obviously correct. We clearly won't need F35s to shoot down Russians, so what exactly are they for? China? Really? The French, perhaps?
A fleet of similar drones with a bit more stealth is more than enough to hit things from the air.
Wordle 259 4/6*
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟨🟨⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟨🟨⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩