My nags for today , had poor day yesterday with non runners and others being donkeys. Tough racing today , winners will be hard to come by. @moonrabbit@stodge@ping
EW Patent Sire Du Berlais 14:10 Cheltenham Champ 15:30 Cheltenham Imperial Alcazar 16:10 Cheltenham
Singles EW Sire Du Berlais 14:10 Cheltenham Champ 15:30 Cheltenham Imperial Alcazar 16:10 Cheltenham
I have used my free bet on Imperial Alcazar to win.
Like the name. There was a Europop band called Alcazar. Not great but liked the name
This is all Sleepy Joe’s fault. He went far too far in his speech yesterday.
Deterrence theory, FWIW, suggests the opposite of that. The snag is that the last decade has given Putin the impression of western vaccination and weakness. Turning that around is necessary but tricky.
“This is extremely worrying. Russian leadership is moving to all out war mode.”
Referring to this:
“Lavrov was halfway to Beijing last night when his plane turned around abruptly and returned to Moscow @BILD reports. Unclear if Putin called him back or Chinese side got cold feet”
This is all Sleepy Joe’s fault. He went far too far in his speech yesterday.
Deterrence theory, FWIW, suggests the opposite of that. The snag is that the last decade has given Putin the impression of western vaccination and weakness. Turning that around is necessary but tricky.
What freaks me out is not me freaking out - I’m always freaking out - it’s the fact there are sane, calm pro military analysts on social media: and they are freaking out. That’s freaky
It’s quite interesting contrasting France and the UK very generally on regional identity and separatism.
Both countries are a larger version of their original cores through war/conquest or absorption.
In the UK the “absorbed/conquered” parts have kept very strong visible identities and different levels of their own independent decision making away from London which have evolved over time but still have strong cultural identities and differences.
The degrees are wide from Scotland, Wales and NI to Cornish or Yorkshire identity.
France however had been very good/very brutal at suppressing the identities of their equivalents with a long focus on being totally “French”.
So whilst areas such as Brittany, Savoie and Basque pockets have independence movements they aren’t very strong and probably mirror Cornish independence movements.
Areas that weren’t historically “France” that aren’t Brittany and Savoie such as Aquitaine and Gascony are very much brought into the whole French demos.
It’s understandable why Corsica is more of an outlier as was always treated slightly badly by France in a cultural sneer kind of way - Napoleon was mocked non stop at military school for being a Corsican, treated like an educated monkey.
I would be surprised if this was a larger issue for France but interesting to see how it pans out.
True, but didn't stop the French making him an emperor! And the "educated monkey" rewrote their constitution on his days off from conquering most of Europe.
Do the French still have that mocking attitude to Corsica?
To be honest I’m not sure how modern French see Corsicans but at the time of Napoleon it was seen as very backwards and different - I would guess very much like how a lot of English viewed Ireland and the Irish at the same time. Interesting that Napoleon and Wellington were both from places that were looked down on by the people who worshipped them later!
It’s a known phenomenon. The outsider - usually middle or lower middle class - aspires to take over the metropole, and is more patriotic than the posher types in the capital
By contrast, religious or nihilistic revolutionaries tend to come from the upper middle or upper classes. Buddha. Bin Laden. Muhammad. Corbyn
Che Guevara (in the second list)
Where does Jesus fit in?
depends if Joseph was a carpenter carpenter or a Lord Linley carpenter. Could be the latter if "Born of David's line" is right in the carol.
That’s an amazing and inspired post Z. Did the machine elves tell you to say it?
Were a lot of Jesus relatives royalty. His uncle/mentor a sectarian leader on the governing council.
i have yet to meet a machine elf, but watch this space - just ordered some mimosa root bark and the chemicals to extract the DMT from it
To you in David's Town this day Is born of David's line The Savior who is Christ the Lord And this shall be the sign
It turns out this is pure Luke, *except* the David's line bit which comes from Matthew. make of that what you will.
there is a nutter archaeologist who has identified jesus' house in Nazareth. The only evidence, other than the date being about right, being that the house is well built, and obv a carpenter would build a good (stone) house.
Do a deal with a stonemason? Mason builds two houses, carpenter builds two lots of fittings?
You have convinced me
Only just occurred to me that he died on a (wooden) cross. No doubt there's acres of theology about this.
Talking of “nutter archaeologist” or perhaps another man’s crusading scientist ahead of their time, does this citation from anthropologist Davidio Spaghetti’s Big Book Of Spaghetti (1963) help you at all?
in the early church. Also, as we discussed previously, conditions in the Roman Empire facilitated the spread of new ideas, such as those of Ishmael and the sons of Ishmael. According to Bobus Smithonus Cacophony Of Rome (74) Ishmael “called the convention of Rome AD73 and vowed to take the good news of the “Peebeeus” to the four corners of the known world”. For this the empire's well-defined network of roads and waterways allowed easy travel, while the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force made it safe to travel from one region to another. For commercial reasons Roman government had encouraged inhabitants, especially those in urban areas, to learn Greek(75), and the common language of Greek born Jew Corbynanus allowed his ideas to be more easily expressed and understood exactly what he was trying to say. However the Church was largely a mess of sectarian division, different belief and interpretation. In North Africa (and soon the Western Mediterranean) the popular Cult of the Corbynanus (who at the Great Council called themselves the Sons of Light) raved and spoke in the first person as Father with three sons, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. Deliriant substance was key to the ceremonial raving, particularly henbane, mandrake, mushrooms and ethanol wine. But the simplicity of the message, the reassurance and comfort blankets of the liturgy, made it popular in attracting followers, and through that wealth too, and this was not to be underestimated even by the larger more traditional Church of Ishmael in Rome, Greece and Tintinople. Unless to mean but one God, with three Sons of the same substance as the father, Tricine concepts of the Corbynanus Cult clearly do not make a great deal of abstract sense, and taken either way their custom and practices had little to do with either the Peebeeus themselves (save the drunkenness) or the Greek ethics and puritan mission of Ishmael and his Church. However by the time of Queen Constant Tintin, Tricine Creed fitted both the monotheism now vogue around and beyond the Empire and the growing calls in the Church to evolve more structured hierarchy to counter the diverse interpretations in belief. By 325AD the wealthy and politically influential Tricine Creed of the Cult was rubber stamped by the Great Council, held at Braintree. In theological terms there are not three Gods, just the one God, and three sons, The Holy Peebeeus.
You are meant to be saving the Class As for defcon 1.
Apologies. I thought this thread is saying this is defcon 1.
Asking for a friend, would it be controversial on PB to use “mushrooms” as a pizza topping?
How many megatons of "mushrooms" is your friend advocating?
As much as it takes to finally meet the machine elevens I suppose.
BBC forced to admit there is 'absolutely no evidence' Corbyn is or was an antisemite.
Ian Austin/Telegraph forced into a humiliating and very expensive public apology about Labour staffer Laura Murray.
Looks like the tide's finally turning.
PB leaves itself open to action by allowing Posters such as Heathener to continue to call Corbyn an Anti Semite
You mean Corbyn the anti-Semite?
That Corbyn?
The self-proclaimed anti-racist who gets himself so confused by what racism is?
That Corbyn?
The fact this site allows you to say that and you are prepared to say it is yours and its problem not mine.
I know Tim has been contacted by Jezzas lawyers for comments on Twitter your turn may come
Why do you feel the need to defend Corbyn so much? Surely you can see *why* people might think it, even if you disagree? But why are you so vehement in your defence of him? What do you get out of it?
And BTW, don't threaten me. If Jezza wants to come after a non-entity like me, then he's little more than a bully. I wonder if he'll use crowd-funded lawyers to do it...
You are opening yourself to legal action as is this site
OK you win. Let's go with benignly tolerant of antisemitism. A broad church kinda guy. And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Wrongly accusing someone of vile Antisemitism has costs as Austin and the Telegraph have found out. Falsely accusing Corbyn of this or being a terrorist sympathiser or a foreign agent have resulted in apologies and substantial damages too.
The BBC lawyers have recently clearly made a decision it can no longer allow such comment
Most importantly false accusation does a massive disservice to fighting actual Antisemitism.
I would like to see people making false accusations punished for that reason
Do you not find it surprising that the EHRC report didnt name Corbyn and almost all the criticisms were about the processes as implemented under Corbyn hater McNicoll and improved under Corbynite Formby.
The Forde report is supposed to be looking into whether certain head office staff were deliberately undermining the fight against AS for factional reasons.
At that point assuming it finds this is correct i understand the legal war chest held by Jezza will be used to go after defamers in the Party
Ah yes, the Forde report. If only Starmer would publish that we will find there was a conspiracy by the Labour Party against the Jeremy after internal polling found He was about to win a majority of 704.
I don't get it. Corbyn is out of the party, the brains trust MPs like Ricky Burgon are self-censoring themselves and the hard left has scabbed off into a swathe of splinter groups under the "Left Unity" banner.
What purpose does it serve to keep trying to defend the reputation of a man who largely didn't have a reputation worth saving?
Because 1000s of members and ex members will be joining a class action against the Party for return of their subs if it was deliberately working to lose the 2017 election as alleged.
Those named like Oldknow would have already filed for defamation if the allegations against them were untrue IMO instead they are trying to defend themselves via data breach as they know the truth is out there
And that would do what for the party's credibility and electability?
To be fair, the rest of the world has this problem too. The Fed increased its rate by .25 this week to 0.5, despite the fact that CPI in the US is running at 7.9%.
Inflation is here in a big way and it's not going away any time soon.
It's a catch 22. Raise rates and the economy goes into recession. Don't raise rates and it's back to 70s style stagflation.
The difference between the US and the UK situation, though, is that Biden is personally copping a lot of the blame for the economy, a lot of people (erroneously) seem to think they'd be better off with the Republicans in charge.
Whereas I don't think there are many people in the UK saying "the economy's bad now, but it would be better under Labour." An opportunity for Labour perhaps? But how many people could even name the shadow chancellor?
Won't energy price increases have the same impact as raising interest rates.
As I understand it, while both will reduce aggregate demand in the economy, their results are different. Raising interest rates means less access to cheap credit, which means less demand for discretionary spending, i.e. stuff you want. Stuff you want therefore has to become cheaper to attract more buyers, therefore taking the sting out of inflation.
But with rising energy prices the cost of everything is becoming more expensive while at the same time discretionary expenditure is falling (because you have to spend money on fuel and heating, demand is inelastic). Meanwhile wage demands spiral, leading to stagflation. i.e. back to the 70s.
Usually there is an inverse relationship between the economy and inflation (the Phillips Curve) but with stagflation the economy is in the sink and prices continue to spiral, creating a vicious cycle that is hard to escape. It took the harsh medicine of Volcker at the Fed in the 80s to bring it under control in the US.
It’s quite interesting contrasting France and the UK very generally on regional identity and separatism.
Both countries are a larger version of their original cores through war/conquest or absorption.
In the UK the “absorbed/conquered” parts have kept very strong visible identities and different levels of their own independent decision making away from London which have evolved over time but still have strong cultural identities and differences.
The degrees are wide from Scotland, Wales and NI to Cornish or Yorkshire identity.
France however had been very good/very brutal at suppressing the identities of their equivalents with a long focus on being totally “French”.
So whilst areas such as Brittany, Savoie and Basque pockets have independence movements they aren’t very strong and probably mirror Cornish independence movements.
Areas that weren’t historically “France” that aren’t Brittany and Savoie such as Aquitaine and Gascony are very much brought into the whole French demos.
It’s understandable why Corsica is more of an outlier as was always treated slightly badly by France in a cultural sneer kind of way - Napoleon was mocked non stop at military school for being a Corsican, treated like an educated monkey.
I would be surprised if this was a larger issue for France but interesting to see how it pans out.
True, but didn't stop the French making him an emperor! And the "educated monkey" rewrote their constitution on his days off from conquering most of Europe.
Do the French still have that mocking attitude to Corsica?
To be honest I’m not sure how modern French see Corsicans but at the time of Napoleon it was seen as very backwards and different - I would guess very much like how a lot of English viewed Ireland and the Irish at the same time. Interesting that Napoleon and Wellington were both from places that were looked down on by the people who worshipped them later!
It’s a known phenomenon. The outsider - usually middle or lower middle class - aspires to take over the metropole, and is more patriotic than the posher types in the capital
By contrast, religious or nihilistic revolutionaries tend to come from the upper middle or upper classes. Buddha. Bin Laden. Muhammad. Corbyn
Che Guevara (in the second list)
Where does Jesus fit in?
depends if Joseph was a carpenter carpenter or a Lord Linley carpenter. Could be the latter if "Born of David's line" is right in the carol.
That’s an amazing and inspired post Z. Did the machine elves tell you to say it?
Were a lot of Jesus relatives royalty. His uncle/mentor a sectarian leader on the governing council.
i have yet to meet a machine elf, but watch this space - just ordered some mimosa root bark and the chemicals to extract the DMT from it
To you in David's Town this day Is born of David's line The Savior who is Christ the Lord And this shall be the sign
It turns out this is pure Luke, *except* the David's line bit which comes from Matthew. make of that what you will.
there is a nutter archaeologist who has identified jesus' house in Nazareth. The only evidence, other than the date being about right, being that the house is well built, and obv a carpenter would build a good (stone) house.
Do a deal with a stonemason? Mason builds two houses, carpenter builds two lots of fittings?
You have convinced me
Only just occurred to me that he died on a (wooden) cross. No doubt there's acres of theology about this.
Talking of “nutter archaeologist” or perhaps another man’s crusading scientist ahead of their time, does this citation from anthropologist Davidio Spaghetti’s Big Book Of Spaghetti (1963) help you at all?
in the early church. Also, as we discussed previously, conditions in the Roman Empire facilitated the spread of new ideas, such as those of Ishmael and the sons of Ishmael. According to Bobus Smithonus Cacophony Of Rome (74) Ishmael “called the convention of Rome AD73 and vowed to take the good news of the “Peebeeus” to the four corners of the known world”. For this the empire's well-defined network of roads and waterways allowed easy travel, while the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force made it safe to travel from one region to another. For commercial reasons Roman government had encouraged inhabitants, especially those in urban areas, to learn Greek(75), and the common language of Greek born Jew Corbynanus allowed his ideas to be more easily expressed and understood exactly what he was trying to say. However the Church was largely a mess of sectarian division, different belief and interpretation. In North Africa (and soon the Western Mediterranean) the popular Cult of the Corbynanus (who at the Great Council called themselves the Sons of Light) raved and spoke in the first person as Father with three sons, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. Deliriant substance was key to the ceremonial raving, particularly henbane, mandrake, mushrooms and ethanol wine. But the simplicity of the message, the reassurance and comfort blankets of the liturgy, made it popular in attracting followers, and through that wealth too, and this was not to be underestimated even by the larger more traditional Church of Ishmael in Rome, Greece and Tintinople. Unless to mean but one God, with three Sons of the same substance as the father, Tricine concepts of the Corbynanus Cult clearly do not make a great deal of abstract sense, and taken either way their custom and practices had little to do with either the Peebeeus themselves (save the drunkenness) or the Greek ethics and puritan mission of Ishmael and his Church. However by the time of Queen Constant Tintin, Tricine Creed fitted both the monotheism now vogue around and beyond the Empire and the growing calls in the Church to evolve more structured hierarchy to counter the diverse interpretations in belief. By 325AD the wealthy and politically influential Tricine Creed of the Cult was rubber stamped by the Great Council, held at Braintree. In theological terms there are not three Gods, just the one God, and three sons, The Holy Peebeeus.
You are meant to be saving the Class As for defcon 1.
Apologies. I thought this thread is saying this is defcon 1.
Asking for a friend, would it be controversial on PB to use “mushrooms” as a pizza topping?
How many megatons of "mushrooms" is your friend advocating?
As much as it takes to finally meet the machine elevens I suppose.
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
One of the planes flying across Siberia is this one. Supposedly
“This fixed-wing aircraft, a modified version of the Tupolev Tu-214 airliner, has been developed especially for the Presidential Executive Office.
Tupolev Tu-214SR, a modified version of the Tu-214, is the Russian so called ‘Doomsday Plane.’ Outfitted with a state-of-the-art multi-intelligence payload, it was designed to provide the Russian leadership with a mobile command and control center in case of a major cataclysm or a global war.”
Jeremy Corbyn wrote a foreword to a book by John Hobson.
I bet John Hobson would have blamed it all on Israel too..
"Hobson's early works were critical of the impact of Jewish immigration and Jewish financiers. In the 1890s he argued that large scale Jewish immigration from the Russian Partition to Western Europe harmed the interests of native workers and advocated limitations on immigration. Writing on the South African war in War in South Africa (1900), he linked the impetus towards war to "Jew Power" in South Africa and saw Johannesburg as a "New Jerusalem". Hobson wrote that "Jewish financiers", whom he saw as "parasites", manipulated the British government that danced to their "diabolical tune". According to history professor Norman Etherington, the section on financiers in Imperialism seems irrelevant to Hobson's economic discourse, and was probably included since Hobson truly believed it. Hobson was innovative in tying between 1898 and 1902 the concept of modernity, empire, and Jews together; according to Hobson, the international financiers influenced the government partially through Jewish press ownership in South Africa and London.
Hobson's analysis was widely disseminated by those opposed to the war and received significant attention. Other contemporary anti-war writers also alleged a mainly Jewish "capitalist conspiracy" was taking place. Following Hobson's January 1900 article Capitalism and Imperialism in South Africa, Labour leader Keir Hardie in February 1900 repeated the same message in paraphrased form accusing "half a dozen financial houses, many of them Jewish" of leading the UK to war. However, as the British working class tended to support the war in South Africa, Hobson's zeal in attacking "Jew Power" in South Africa and manipulation by a secret "racial confederacy" failed to attract popular support in Britain, though "anti-Alien" sentiments continued to be an issue. On the European continent, "the alleged "robbery committed by international Jewry" was invariably linked to continental antisemites (especially on the Right) with British imperialist piracy against the "plucky Boers" fighting for self-determination"."""
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
BBC forced to admit there is 'absolutely no evidence' Corbyn is or was an antisemite.
Ian Austin/Telegraph forced into a humiliating and very expensive public apology about Labour staffer Laura Murray.
Looks like the tide's finally turning.
PB leaves itself open to action by allowing Posters such as Heathener to continue to call Corbyn an Anti Semite
You mean Corbyn the anti-Semite?
That Corbyn?
The self-proclaimed anti-racist who gets himself so confused by what racism is?
That Corbyn?
The fact this site allows you to say that and you are prepared to say it is yours and its problem not mine.
I know Tim has been contacted by Jezzas lawyers for comments on Twitter your turn may come
Why do you feel the need to defend Corbyn so much? Surely you can see *why* people might think it, even if you disagree? But why are you so vehement in your defence of him? What do you get out of it?
And BTW, don't threaten me. If Jezza wants to come after a non-entity like me, then he's little more than a bully. I wonder if he'll use crowd-funded lawyers to do it...
You are opening yourself to legal action as is this site
OK you win. Let's go with benignly tolerant of antisemitism. A broad church kinda guy. And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Wrongly accusing someone of vile Antisemitism has costs as Austin and the Telegraph have found out. Falsely accusing Corbyn of this or being a terrorist sympathiser or a foreign agent have resulted in apologies and substantial damages too.
The BBC lawyers have recently clearly made a decision it can no longer allow such comment
Most importantly false accusation does a massive disservice to fighting actual Antisemitism.
I would like to see people making false accusations punished for that reason
Do you not find it surprising that the EHRC report didnt name Corbyn and almost all the criticisms were about the processes as implemented under Corbyn hater McNicoll and improved under Corbynite Formby.
The Forde report is supposed to be looking into whether certain head office staff were deliberately undermining the fight against AS for factional reasons.
At that point assuming it finds this is correct i understand the legal war chest held by Jezza will be used to go after defamers in the Party
Ten times in twenty-eight years. Your point being, for a self-proclaimed anti-racist?
No, I don't find it surprising the EHRC did not name him.
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
My usual mix of logic and intuition. I'm upper echelon on this.
Given that we’re all about to die in a nuclear apocalypse, it’s time to start thinking about what we’d eat for a last supper. I’ve been having the same chat in a couple of WhatsApp groups
Me: I’d have native British oysters from Scott’s (if in season)
Then maybe a kilo of wild caspian caviar off mother of pearl spoons
But what do you have for a main?
Maybe an insanely hot Singapore chicken laksa because you don’t have to worry about it hurting the next day
I suspect that, were the apocalypse to come, rather than fine dining, dugs or vigorous sex, many PBers would take the opportunity to have a final game of Wordle before their last gasp.
Millions of people in this country do cryptic crosswords. As far as I know, there has never been a weirdo trend for posting their results (and times) online and boasting to everyone that they are able to complete a puzzle.
I put this down to the fact that cryptic crosswords are a more elegant and erudite pursuit than a mundane trial-and-error matrix. And, thus, attract a more genteel and gently modest participant.
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
A lot of people assessed the chances of an Actual Ukrainian Invasion as “remote”
This is all Sleepy Joe’s fault. He went far too far in his speech yesterday.
Deterrence theory, FWIW, suggests the opposite of that. The snag is that the last decade has given Putin the impression of western vaccination and weakness. Turning that around is necessary but tricky.
What freaks me out is not me freaking out - I’m always freaking out - it’s the fact there are sane, calm pro military analysts on social media: and they are freaking out. That’s freaky
I don't mean to minimise the dangers - just talking about the response most likely to reduce them. I don't think anyone has felt this way since the 1980s.
One of the planes flying across Siberia is this one. Supposedly
“This fixed-wing aircraft, a modified version of the Tupolev Tu-214 airliner, has been developed especially for the Presidential Executive Office.
Tupolev Tu-214SR, a modified version of the Tu-214, is the Russian so called ‘Doomsday Plane.’ Outfitted with a state-of-the-art multi-intelligence payload....
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1504440205352349700 "Three independent sources report that the deputy chief of Russia's Rosgvardia (a unit of RU's interior army which has had tremendous losses in Ukraine), Gen. Roman Gavrilov has been detained by FSB. Gavrilov had also previously worked in FSO, Putin's security service."
Russia's answer to Baghdad Bob will be along soon to assure us that this was all part of the plan for day 22 of the 3 day special military operation.
Idiots. Time to get rid of mask altogether and forever.
There appears to be an abundance of international evidence that masking is near or completely useless against omicron (e.g. Hong Kong, NZ). It's not clear why anyone would persisting with an intrusive, antisocial measure for no obvious health benefit.
Idiots. Time to get rid of mask altogether and forever.
There appears to be an abundance of international evidence that masking is near or completely useless against omicron (e.g. Hong Kong, NZ). It's not clear why anyone would persisting with an intrusive, antisocial measure for no obvious health benefit.
Has there been a scientific study demonstrating this?
Anders Åslund @anders_aslund The incredible is about to happen: Ukraine appears to be about to defeat Russia in Ukraine. Russia allocated 100 out of its ca 170 battalion tactical groups to its assault on Ukraine. According to the Ukrainians, about 50 btgs are now out of action.
Zelensky's excellent military advisor Arestovich predicted yesterday that Ukraine could win the war in two weeks time unless something extraordinary happened. Russian troops can be expelled from the whole of Ukraine. The new US military supplies might cause the end of the war.
I cannot believe that Putin will survive a military defeat in Ukraine. He has committed every possible mistake and crime. The question is rather how and when he will end. I see that many of the oligarchs' private jets are flying from Moscow to Dubai, their last holdout.
This is all Sleepy Joe’s fault. He went far too far in his speech yesterday.
Deterrence theory, FWIW, suggests the opposite of that. The snag is that the last decade has given Putin the impression of western vaccination and weakness. Turning that around is necessary but tricky.
What freaks me out is not me freaking out - I’m always freaking out - it’s the fact there are sane, calm pro military analysts on social media: and they are freaking out. That’s freaky
I don't mean to minimise the dangers - just talking about the response most likely to reduce them. I don't think anyone has felt this way since the 1980s.
Things is, in the 80s, we didn't have the internet. We didn't have access to flightradar24, or the latest rumours from inside Russia, and we didn't have like minded worriers on the internet to talk to. We just got on with our lives. Maybe watched the news in the evening - news which has already been through a review and polish process and only told us what reporters were sure of - and looked concerned for a bit, but that was it. So it's difficult to compare. I suspect had the internet been around in 1983 we could have all got jolly frightened then too.
BBC forced to admit there is 'absolutely no evidence' Corbyn is or was an antisemite.
Ian Austin/Telegraph forced into a humiliating and very expensive public apology about Labour staffer Laura Murray.
Looks like the tide's finally turning.
PB leaves itself open to action by allowing Posters such as Heathener to continue to call Corbyn an Anti Semite
You mean Corbyn the anti-Semite?
That Corbyn?
The self-proclaimed anti-racist who gets himself so confused by what racism is?
That Corbyn?
The fact this site allows you to say that and you are prepared to say it is yours and its problem not mine.
I know Tim has been contacted by Jezzas lawyers for comments on Twitter your turn may come
Why do you feel the need to defend Corbyn so much? Surely you can see *why* people might think it, even if you disagree? But why are you so vehement in your defence of him? What do you get out of it?
And BTW, don't threaten me. If Jezza wants to come after a non-entity like me, then he's little more than a bully. I wonder if he'll use crowd-funded lawyers to do it...
You are opening yourself to legal action as is this site
OK you win. Let's go with benignly tolerant of antisemitism. A broad church kinda guy. And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Wrongly accusing someone of vile Antisemitism has costs as Austin and the Telegraph have found out. Falsely accusing Corbyn of this or being a terrorist sympathiser or a foreign agent have resulted in apologies and substantial damages too.
The BBC lawyers have recently clearly made a decision it can no longer allow such comment
Have the BBC done that officially? Really?
AFAICS that statement was made by a single presenter - Rachel Burden - on Jan 9 2022 in relation to her not sufficiently challenging an interviewee - John Cauldwell - who called Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite. Her statement on air is here:
The Campaign Against Antisemitism have already challenged the BBC on Jan 12 2022, on the basis of the CAA dossier of 24 incidents where they state that Corbyn demonstrated antisemitic behaviour. Reported by them here:
It’s really rather pleasing that MPs will get to keep their lucrative uncapped second jobs and also receive their £2k pay rise on the same day my tax will increase to pay for the care of old people, very many of whom have more assets than me and won’t themselves be hit by the tax rise.
On top of everything else skyrocketing. Inflation’s at 8%, apparently.
Assuming we’re not all fried imminently this will knock Ukraine off the headlines here soon as people start to really feel the hit in their pockets.
It feels like the calm before this particular storm. I cannot understand for the life of me why the government isn’t doing more about all this, but rather insisting the NI rise must go ahead.
Did I hear something about the tiny Sunak doing a ‘wartime budget’ soon? Does a glorious, magnanimous, beneficent U-turn seem likely?
Given that we’re all about to die in a nuclear apocalypse, it’s time to start thinking about what we’d eat for a last supper. I’ve been having the same chat in a couple of WhatsApp groups
Me: I’d have native British oysters from Scott’s (if in season)
Then maybe a kilo of wild caspian caviar off mother of pearl spoons
But what do you have for a main?
Maybe an insanely hot Singapore chicken laksa because you don’t have to worry about it hurting the next day
I suspect that, were the apocalypse to come, rather than fine dining, dugs or vigorous sex, many PBers would take the opportunity to have a final game of Wordle before their last gasp.
Wordle 271 4/6*
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟩 ⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Took me ages. good word.
Wordle 271 3/6
⬜⬜⬜🟩🟨 🟩🟨⬜🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
How are people doing overall?
Yes. Quite tricky.
(I'm doing it less now, since the NYT had their brainstorm and applied Maiden Aunt censorship.)
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1504440205352349700 "Three independent sources report that the deputy chief of Russia's Rosgvardia (a unit of RU's interior army which has had tremendous losses in Ukraine), Gen. Roman Gavrilov has been detained by FSB. Gavrilov had also previously worked in FSO, Putin's security service."
Russia's answer to Baghdad Bob will be along soon to assure us that this was all part of the plan for day 22 of the 3 day special military operation.
Could the actions of Gavrilov principally start a world war?
It’s really rather pleasing that MPs will get to keep their lucrative uncapped second jobs and also receive their £2k pay rise on the same day my tax will increase to pay for the care of old people, very many of whom have more assets than me and won’t themselves be hit by the tax rise.
On top of everything else skyrocketing. Inflation’s at 8%, apparently.
Assuming we’re not all fried imminently this will knock Ukraine off the headlines here soon as people start to really feel the hit in their pockets.
It feels like the calm before this particular storm. I cannot understand for the life of me why the government isn’t doing more about all this, but rather insisting the NI rise must go ahead.
Did I hear something about the tiny Sunak doing a ‘wartime budget’ soon? Does a glorious, magnanimous, beneficent U-turn seem likely?
So the MPs’ 3% pay rise is 5% below inflation, and the average MP will have £4,000 less in their pocket as a result?
BBC forced to admit there is 'absolutely no evidence' Corbyn is or was an antisemite.
Ian Austin/Telegraph forced into a humiliating and very expensive public apology about Labour staffer Laura Murray.
Looks like the tide's finally turning.
PB leaves itself open to action by allowing Posters such as Heathener to continue to call Corbyn an Anti Semite
You mean Corbyn the anti-Semite?
That Corbyn?
The self-proclaimed anti-racist who gets himself so confused by what racism is?
That Corbyn?
The fact this site allows you to say that and you are prepared to say it is yours and its problem not mine.
I know Tim has been contacted by Jezzas lawyers for comments on Twitter your turn may come
Why do you feel the need to defend Corbyn so much? Surely you can see *why* people might think it, even if you disagree? But why are you so vehement in your defence of him? What do you get out of it?
And BTW, don't threaten me. If Jezza wants to come after a non-entity like me, then he's little more than a bully. I wonder if he'll use crowd-funded lawyers to do it...
You are opening yourself to legal action as is this site
OK you win. Let's go with benignly tolerant of antisemitism. A broad church kinda guy. And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Wrongly accusing someone of vile Antisemitism has costs as Austin and the Telegraph have found out. Falsely accusing Corbyn of this or being a terrorist sympathiser or a foreign agent have resulted in apologies and substantial damages too.
The BBC lawyers have recently clearly made a decision it can no longer allow such comment
Most importantly false accusation does a massive disservice to fighting actual Antisemitism.
I would like to see people making false accusations punished for that reason
Do you not find it surprising that the EHRC report didnt name Corbyn and almost all the criticisms were about the processes as implemented under Corbyn hater McNicoll and improved under Corbynite Formby.
The Forde report is supposed to be looking into whether certain head office staff were deliberately undermining the fight against AS for factional reasons.
At that point assuming it finds this is correct i understand the legal war chest held by Jezza will be used to go after defamers in the Party
Ah yes, the Forde report. If only Starmer would publish that we will find there was a conspiracy by the Labour Party against the Jeremy after internal polling found He was about to win a majority of 704.
I don't get it. Corbyn is out of the party, the brains trust MPs like Ricky Burgon are self-censoring themselves and the hard left has scabbed off into a swathe of splinter groups under the "Left Unity" banner.
What purpose does it serve to keep trying to defend the reputation of a man who largely didn't have a reputation worth saving?
Because 1000s of members and ex members will be joining a class action against the Party for return of their subs if it was deliberately working to lose the 2017 election as alleged.
Those named like Oldknow would have already filed for defamation if the allegations against them were untrue IMO instead they are trying to defend themselves via data breach as they know the truth is out there
Oh dear:
1. The party was not "deliberately working to lose the 2017 election" 2. May increasing the Tories vote haul by 20% - an additional 2.3m votes - is what lost Labour the election 3. Which rather torpedoes the "actually Jeremy was really popular actually" argument. He was so popular that he generated millions more votes for the Tories to keep him out.
Politics and elections aren't just about what you do. Its about what your opponents do. Which is why the bullshit can't add LibDem Barchart "info"graphics of actually how Jeremy got more votes actually than Blair actually are so laughably sad. When the Tories have a majority, then add 20% more votes on top, you lose.
As for Oldknow et al, perhaps they honestly don't care less what the Trot army says about them. Which is why they aren't suing. Its the past, the people making allegations are irrelevant to them, who cares. Not so much a vast conspiracy against the Jeremy as nobody thinks its relevant any more.
I was in a pub once and heard a bloke on a nearby table proclaim how much he 'liked' Putin. (This was as the time of the Salisbury attacks.) Wow. What were the chances?
Impressive that nearly 20% of UK energy is being produced by solar panels at the moment, given the time of year and the fact that there don't seem to be that many solar panels installed in this country.
This is all Sleepy Joe’s fault. He went far too far in his speech yesterday.
Deterrence theory, FWIW, suggests the opposite of that. The snag is that the last decade has given Putin the impression of western vaccination and weakness. Turning that around is necessary but tricky.
What freaks me out is not me freaking out - I’m always freaking out - it’s the fact there are sane, calm pro military analysts on social media: and they are freaking out. That’s freaky
I don't mean to minimise the dangers - just talking about the response most likely to reduce them. I don't think anyone has felt this way since the 1980s.
Things is, in the 80s, we didn't have the internet. We didn't have access to flightradar24, or the latest rumours from inside Russia, and we didn't have like minded worriers on the internet to talk to. We just got on with our lives...
You don't remember the Greenham Common women ? For some the lack of knowledge made the existential dread worse.
It’s really rather pleasing that MPs will get to keep their lucrative uncapped second jobs and also receive their £2k pay rise on the same day my tax will increase to pay for the care of old people, very many of whom have more assets than me and won’t themselves be hit by the tax rise.
On top of everything else skyrocketing. Inflation’s at 8%, apparently.
Assuming we’re not all fried imminently this will knock Ukraine off the headlines here soon as people start to really feel the hit in their pockets.
It feels like the calm before this particular storm. I cannot understand for the life of me why the government isn’t doing more about all this, but rather insisting the NI rise must go ahead.
Did I hear something about the tiny Sunak doing a ‘wartime budget’ soon? Does a glorious, magnanimous, beneficent U-turn seem likely?
Nope, because I don't think the software can be reversed in time.
I was in a pub once and heard a bloke on a nearby table proclaim how much he 'liked' Putin. (This was as the time of the Salisbury attacks.) Wow. What were the chances?
We’re you near any cathedrals he could have been visiting?
Idiots. Time to get rid of mask altogether and forever.
There appears to be an abundance of international evidence that masking is near or completely useless against omicron (e.g. Hong Kong, NZ). It's not clear why anyone would persisting with an intrusive, antisocial measure for no obvious health benefit.
Has there been a scientific study demonstrating this?
I was in a pub once and heard a bloke on a nearby table proclaim how much he 'liked' Putin. (This was as the time of the Salisbury attacks.) Wow. What were the chances?
It’s really rather pleasing that MPs will get to keep their lucrative uncapped second jobs and also receive their £2k pay rise on the same day my tax will increase to pay for the care of old people, very many of whom have more assets than me and won’t themselves be hit by the tax rise.
On top of everything else skyrocketing. Inflation’s at 8%, apparently.
Assuming we’re not all fried imminently this will knock Ukraine off the headlines here soon as people start to really feel the hit in their pockets.
It feels like the calm before this particular storm. I cannot understand for the life of me why the government isn’t doing more about all this, but rather insisting the NI rise must go ahead.
Did I hear something about the tiny Sunak doing a ‘wartime budget’ soon? Does a glorious, magnanimous, beneficent U-turn seem likely?
I think the timings of assorted finance bills and the links to live systems makes it pretty hard now. He’s bound to do something showy though. Petrol? VAT on fuel? 5-10% cut to VAT in general?
I am *not* a fan of Putin's we've-got-to-rid-the-Ukraine-of-NAZIs claim. Especially as he has his own NAZIs he uses, and he is acting like a fascist himself.
But... if Ukraine get an independent, democratic state, then Zelenskyy may have a problem. The Azov Battalion are fascists, and whilst I can understand why Ukraine wanted everyone it can to fight after 2014, they will be a prominent and armed group after the war ends.
It'll be interesting to see how he deals with them, given most of his country do not support far-right parties at the last election.
It’s really rather pleasing that MPs will get to keep their lucrative uncapped second jobs and also receive their £2k pay rise on the same day my tax will increase to pay for the care of old people, very many of whom have more assets than me and won’t themselves be hit by the tax rise.
On top of everything else skyrocketing. Inflation’s at 8%, apparently.
Assuming we’re not all fried imminently this will knock Ukraine off the headlines here soon as people start to really feel the hit in their pockets.
It feels like the calm before this particular storm. I cannot understand for the life of me why the government isn’t doing more about all this, but rather insisting the NI rise must go ahead.
Did I hear something about the tiny Sunak doing a ‘wartime budget’ soon? Does a glorious, magnanimous, beneficent U-turn seem likely?
The Jobs Tax has the potential to be one of the most moronic pieces of fiscal policy of all time. I still expect it to be binned, or reversed in short order, as I have been predicting for months.
This is all Sleepy Joe’s fault. He went far too far in his speech yesterday.
Deterrence theory, FWIW, suggests the opposite of that. The snag is that the last decade has given Putin the impression of western vaccination and weakness. Turning that around is necessary but tricky.
What freaks me out is not me freaking out - I’m always freaking out - it’s the fact there are sane, calm pro military analysts on social media: and they are freaking out. That’s freaky
I don't mean to minimise the dangers - just talking about the response most likely to reduce them. I don't think anyone has felt this way since the 1980s.
Things is, in the 80s, we didn't have the internet. We didn't have access to flightradar24, or the latest rumours from inside Russia, and we didn't have like minded worriers on the internet to talk to. We just got on with our lives. Maybe watched the news in the evening - news which has already been through a review and polish process and only told us what reporters were sure of - and looked concerned for a bit, but that was it. So it's difficult to compare. I suspect had the internet been around in 1983 we could have all got jolly frightened then too.
I had other concerns in the 80s. Learning to walk, talk, read, write, playing with lego. Quite a pleasant oblivious state to be in, in retrospect.
I remember seeing something about new-clear powerstations on the news (newsround, maybe) and asking my parents whether they were clear because they were made of glass.
So this is all a bit new to me - and I'm not exactly a spring chicken.
I am *not* a fan of Putin's we've-got-to-rid-the-Ukraine-of-NAZIs claim. Especially as he has his own NAZIs he uses, and he is acting like a fascist himself.
But... if Ukraine get an independent, democratic state, then Zelenskyy may have a problem. The Azov Battalion are fascists, and whilst I can understand why Ukraine wanted everyone it can to fight after 2014, they will be a prominent and armed group after the war ends.
It'll be interesting to see how he deals with them, given most of his country do not support far-right parties at the last election.
Sent them to fight the toughest of the Russians without the proper support to do so?…. Two birds, one stone.
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
A lot of people assessed the chances of an Actual Ukrainian Invasion as “remote”
TBF inc me. I was quite shocked by it. It didn't seem to make sense (for Putin) therefore I thought it wouldn't happen. So perhaps my usual abilities are malfunctioning on this one. Perhaps him going nuclear is more than a remote possibility. Perhaps the unthinkable is actually going to happen. Oh please let it not be so. I hate being wrong on PB.
Anders Åslund @anders_aslund The incredible is about to happen: Ukraine appears to be about to defeat Russia in Ukraine. Russia allocated 100 out of its ca 170 battalion tactical groups to its assault on Ukraine. According to the Ukrainians, about 50 btgs are now out of action.
Zelensky's excellent military advisor Arestovich predicted yesterday that Ukraine could win the war in two weeks time unless something extraordinary happened. Russian troops can be expelled from the whole of Ukraine. The new US military supplies might cause the end of the war.
I cannot believe that Putin will survive a military defeat in Ukraine. He has committed every possible mistake and crime. The question is rather how and when he will end. I see that many of the oligarchs' private jets are flying from Moscow to Dubai, their last holdout.
This is all Sleepy Joe’s fault. He went far too far in his speech yesterday.
Deterrence theory, FWIW, suggests the opposite of that. The snag is that the last decade has given Putin the impression of western vaccination and weakness. Turning that around is necessary but tricky.
What freaks me out is not me freaking out - I’m always freaking out - it’s the fact there are sane, calm pro military analysts on social media: and they are freaking out. That’s freaky
I don't mean to minimise the dangers - just talking about the response most likely to reduce them. I don't think anyone has felt this way since the 1980s.
Things is, in the 80s, we didn't have the internet. We didn't have access to flightradar24, or the latest rumours from inside Russia, and we didn't have like minded worriers on the internet to talk to. We just got on with our lives...
You don't remember the Greenham Common women ? For some the lack of knowledge made the existential dread worse.
That is perhaps the most extraordinary change in my lifetime to date: in 1980, knowledge was a scarce and valuable asset; now it is a commodity freely(-ish) available to everyone with a smart phone.
Wisdom remains a valuable, scarce resource, though (cough, Falklands threads ...)
BBC forced to admit there is 'absolutely no evidence' Corbyn is or was an antisemite.
Ian Austin/Telegraph forced into a humiliating and very expensive public apology about Labour staffer Laura Murray.
Looks like the tide's finally turning.
PB leaves itself open to action by allowing Posters such as Heathener to continue to call Corbyn an Anti Semite
You mean Corbyn the anti-Semite?
That Corbyn?
The self-proclaimed anti-racist who gets himself so confused by what racism is?
That Corbyn?
The fact this site allows you to say that and you are prepared to say it is yours and its problem not mine.
I know Tim has been contacted by Jezzas lawyers for comments on Twitter your turn may come
Why do you feel the need to defend Corbyn so much? Surely you can see *why* people might think it, even if you disagree? But why are you so vehement in your defence of him? What do you get out of it?
And BTW, don't threaten me. If Jezza wants to come after a non-entity like me, then he's little more than a bully. I wonder if he'll use crowd-funded lawyers to do it...
You are opening yourself to legal action as is this site
OK you win. Let's go with benignly tolerant of antisemitism. A broad church kinda guy. And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Wrongly accusing someone of vile Antisemitism has costs as Austin and the Telegraph have found out. Falsely accusing Corbyn of this or being a terrorist sympathiser or a foreign agent have resulted in apologies and substantial damages too.
The BBC lawyers have recently clearly made a decision it can no longer allow such comment
Most importantly false accusation does a massive disservice to fighting actual Antisemitism.
I would like to see people making false accusations punished for that reason
Do you not find it surprising that the EHRC report didnt name Corbyn and almost all the criticisms were about the processes as implemented under Corbyn hater McNicoll and improved under Corbynite Formby.
The Forde report is supposed to be looking into whether certain head office staff were deliberately undermining the fight against AS for factional reasons.
At that point assuming it finds this is correct i understand the legal war chest held by Jezza will be used to go after defamers in the Party
Ah yes, the Forde report. If only Starmer would publish that we will find there was a conspiracy by the Labour Party against the Jeremy after internal polling found He was about to win a majority of 704.
I don't get it. Corbyn is out of the party, the brains trust MPs like Ricky Burgon are self-censoring themselves and the hard left has scabbed off into a swathe of splinter groups under the "Left Unity" banner.
What purpose does it serve to keep trying to defend the reputation of a man who largely didn't have a reputation worth saving?
Because 1000s of members and ex members will be joining a class action against the Party for return of their subs if it was deliberately working to lose the 2017 election as alleged.
Those named like Oldknow would have already filed for defamation if the allegations against them were untrue IMO instead they are trying to defend themselves via data breach as they know the truth is out there
Oh dear:
1. The party was not "deliberately working to lose the 2017 election" 2. May increasing the Tories vote haul by 20% - an additional 2.3m votes - is what lost Labour the election 3. Which rather torpedoes the "actually Jeremy was really popular actually" argument. He was so popular that he generated millions more votes for the Tories to keep him out.
Politics and elections aren't just about what you do. Its about what your opponents do. Which is why the bullshit can't add LibDem Barchart "info"graphics of actually how Jeremy got more votes actually than Blair actually are so laughably sad. When the Tories have a majority, then add 20% more votes on top, you lose.
As for Oldknow et al, perhaps they honestly don't care less what the Trot army says about them. Which is why they aren't suing. Its the past, the people making allegations are irrelevant to them, who cares. Not so much a vast conspiracy against the Jeremy as nobody thinks its relevant any more.
You are not waiting for the Forde report?
One of the claims Forde is investigating is precisely whether The party HQ was not "deliberately working to lose the 2017 election"
I will wait to see what Forde finds if he finds it was I will be joining the class action.
If not shrugs shoulders.
Tories added 2.3m votes Jezza added 3.5 million votes as you know
BBC forced to admit there is 'absolutely no evidence' Corbyn is or was an antisemite.
Ian Austin/Telegraph forced into a humiliating and very expensive public apology about Labour staffer Laura Murray.
Looks like the tide's finally turning.
PB leaves itself open to action by allowing Posters such as Heathener to continue to call Corbyn an Anti Semite
You mean Corbyn the anti-Semite?
That Corbyn?
The self-proclaimed anti-racist who gets himself so confused by what racism is?
That Corbyn?
The fact this site allows you to say that and you are prepared to say it is yours and its problem not mine.
I know Tim has been contacted by Jezzas lawyers for comments on Twitter your turn may come
Why do you feel the need to defend Corbyn so much? Surely you can see *why* people might think it, even if you disagree? But why are you so vehement in your defence of him? What do you get out of it?
And BTW, don't threaten me. If Jezza wants to come after a non-entity like me, then he's little more than a bully. I wonder if he'll use crowd-funded lawyers to do it...
You are opening yourself to legal action as is this site
OK you win. Let's go with benignly tolerant of antisemitism. A broad church kinda guy. And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Wrongly accusing someone of vile Antisemitism has costs as Austin and the Telegraph have found out. Falsely accusing Corbyn of this or being a terrorist sympathiser or a foreign agent have resulted in apologies and substantial damages too.
The BBC lawyers have recently clearly made a decision it can no longer allow such comment
Most importantly false accusation does a massive disservice to fighting actual Antisemitism.
I would like to see people making false accusations punished for that reason
Do you not find it surprising that the EHRC report didnt name Corbyn and almost all the criticisms were about the processes as implemented under Corbyn hater McNicoll and improved under Corbynite Formby.
The Forde report is supposed to be looking into whether certain head office staff were deliberately undermining the fight against AS for factional reasons.
At that point assuming it finds this is correct i understand the legal war chest held by Jezza will be used to go after defamers in the Party
Ah yes, the Forde report. If only Starmer would publish that we will find there was a conspiracy by the Labour Party against the Jeremy after internal polling found He was about to win a majority of 704.
I don't get it. Corbyn is out of the party, the brains trust MPs like Ricky Burgon are self-censoring themselves and the hard left has scabbed off into a swathe of splinter groups under the "Left Unity" banner.
What purpose does it serve to keep trying to defend the reputation of a man who largely didn't have a reputation worth saving?
Because 1000s of members and ex members will be joining a class action against the Party for return of their subs if it was deliberately working to lose the 2017 election as alleged.
Those named like Oldknow would have already filed for defamation if the allegations against them were untrue IMO instead they are trying to defend themselves via data breach as they know the truth is out there
Oh dear:
1. The party was not "deliberately working to lose the 2017 election" 2. May increasing the Tories vote haul by 20% - an additional 2.3m votes - is what lost Labour the election 3. Which rather torpedoes the "actually Jeremy was really popular actually" argument. He was so popular that he generated millions more votes for the Tories to keep him out.
Politics and elections aren't just about what you do. Its about what your opponents do. Which is why the bullshit can't add LibDem Barchart "info"graphics of actually how Jeremy got more votes actually than Blair actually are so laughably sad. When the Tories have a majority, then add 20% more votes on top, you lose.
As for Oldknow et al, perhaps they honestly don't care less what the Trot army says about them. Which is why they aren't suing. Its the past, the people making allegations are irrelevant to them, who cares. Not so much a vast conspiracy against the Jeremy as nobody thinks its relevant any more.
Yes, well put.
Emilie Oldknow has won. Why would she reopen old wounds by going into a pointless battle with a bunch of bitter old trots?
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
A lot of people assessed the chances of an Actual Ukrainian Invasion as “remote”
TBF inc me. I was quite shocked by it. It didn't seem to make sense (for Putin) therefore I thought it wouldn't happen. So perhaps my usual abilities are malfunctioning on this one. Perhaps him going nuclear is more than a remote possibility. Perhaps the unthinkable is actually going to happen. Oh please let it not be so. I hate being wrong on PB.
I'd been warning about it since 2014, including, I believe, on here. It was obvious Putin was not content with just Crimea and the Donbass. He had two routes: political and military. The political route got damaged in the 2019 election. That left the military.
Georgia, Crimea, Litvinenko, Salisbury, etc, etc show that Putin does not think of international relations in the same way we do. He as much more in common with Stalin or Hitler than he would like to think.
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
A lot of people assessed the chances of an Actual Ukrainian Invasion as “remote”
TBF inc me. I was quite shocked by it. It didn't seem to make sense (for Putin) therefore I thought it wouldn't happen. So perhaps my usual abilities are malfunctioning on this one. Perhaps him going nuclear is more than a remote possibility. Perhaps the unthinkable is actually going to happen. Oh please let it not be so. I hate being wrong on PB.
There's a Pascal's wager thing going on here. It is safe to predict things won't go nuclear, because nobody's going to have time to pick you up on it if you are wrong.
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
A lot of people assessed the chances of an Actual Ukrainian Invasion as “remote”
TBF inc me. I was quite shocked by it. It didn't seem to make sense (for Putin) therefore I thought it wouldn't happen. So perhaps my usual abilities are malfunctioning on this one. Perhaps him going nuclear is more than a remote possibility. Perhaps the unthinkable is actually going to happen. Oh please let it not be so. I hate being wrong on PB.
I must admit, the maximal Russian action I foresaw was a push to take the entire Donbass. But this - never. And, to my shame, I really doubted the Ukrainians could do what they have done. Let's hope Arestovich is right.
So once you take out those who haven't heard of each person, Johnson's lack of popularity is exceeded only by Putin.
Net favorability in that poll: Zelenskyy: +60 Scholz +5 Biden -2 Macron -17 Johnson -23 Putin -90
Pleased and reassured by how flaccid the Boris Bounce is, what with him being the Heir to Churchill and Ukrainian folk hero.
I know a poll by Lord Ashcroft's organization stated that Boris was the most adored world leader in Ukraine. Has that claim been substantiated elsewhere?
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
A lot of people assessed the chances of an Actual Ukrainian Invasion as “remote”
TBF inc me. I was quite shocked by it. It didn't seem to make sense (for Putin) therefore I thought it wouldn't happen. So perhaps my usual abilities are malfunctioning on this one. Perhaps him going nuclear is more than a remote possibility. Perhaps the unthinkable is actually going to happen. Oh please let it not be so. I hate being wrong on PB.
There's a Pascal's wager thing going on here. It is safe to predict things won't go nuclear, because nobody's going to have time to pick you up on it if you are wrong.
You: Ha, don't have to pay that bet, at least.... God: You didn't know I posted on PB?
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
A lot of people assessed the chances of an Actual Ukrainian Invasion as “remote”
TBF inc me. I was quite shocked by it. It didn't seem to make sense (for Putin) therefore I thought it wouldn't happen. So perhaps my usual abilities are malfunctioning on this one. Perhaps him going nuclear is more than a remote possibility. Perhaps the unthinkable is actually going to happen. Oh please let it not be so. I hate being wrong on PB.
Yes, I was being unusually polite (as we are all quite rattled)
You were one of the loudest advocates, along with @Heathener for the "no way he will invade Ukraine" thesis. Sadly wrong
My worry with Putin is that he keeps saying "You don't believe that I will do this? - just you watch, I will now do this" - and then he goes and does it
He's now saying it with nukes. He's warning us he will use them, so there is - to my mind - a non-trivial chance that he will indeed use them. Or at least something non-conventional: a chemical weapon, or a dirty bomb in Chernobyl, or somesuch
Escalation is almost his only way of avoiding imminent humiliation
I was in a pub once and heard a bloke on a nearby table proclaim how much he 'liked' Putin. (This was as the time of the Salisbury attacks.) Wow. What were the chances?
Well Putin has for a while been an idol for a chunk of the fruity right - including the leading advocate of such on here - because of his muscular defence of traditional values.
Although I note Trump has said "he's changed". So maybe they've gone off him a bit now.
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
A lot of people assessed the chances of an Actual Ukrainian Invasion as “remote”
TBF inc me. I was quite shocked by it. It didn't seem to make sense (for Putin) therefore I thought it wouldn't happen. So perhaps my usual abilities are malfunctioning on this one. Perhaps him going nuclear is more than a remote possibility. Perhaps the unthinkable is actually going to happen. Oh please let it not be so. I hate being wrong on PB.
I'd been warning about it since 2014, including, I believe, on here. It was obvious Putin was not content with just Crimea and the Donbass. He had two routes: political and military. The political route got damaged in the 2019 election. That left the military.
Georgia, Crimea, Litvinenko, Salisbury, etc, etc show that Putin does not think of international relations in the same way we do. He as much more in common with Stalin or Hitler than he would like to think.
I thought, since 2014, that once Nord Stream 2 was up, he would start increasing the "resistance" in Eastern Ukraine, nibbling away, demanding Minsk II
When the recent build up started, it seemed incredible, but there was no way out of that becoming a major invasion.
Last week, I read critiques of my position on Putin’s rationality and possibility of nuclear war. Many are not realist enough about the nuclear threat or the right response. I argue in this thread that if we “blink” on Putin’s nuclear threat, we will increase the risk of WWIII. https://twitter.com/andreivkozyrev/status/1503404009142423558
That's sound but I'm not sure the US response can fairly be described as 'blinking'. They've laid a clear red line - NATO territory - and I can't see why Putin would doubt this based on US rhetoric and actions thus far.
The basic problem is that Putin isn't Thatcher. He might well be prepared to use nukes rather than lose power.
In which case there's nothing we can do. But I assess the possibility as remote. Far far more likely is he's seeking to promote exactly that belief you articulate. That he's mad enough to do it. The more we buy into this the more potent is the blackmail.
How do you assess the possibility as remote? You have no no data for that.
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
A lot of people assessed the chances of an Actual Ukrainian Invasion as “remote”
TBF inc me. I was quite shocked by it. It didn't seem to make sense (for Putin) therefore I thought it wouldn't happen. So perhaps my usual abilities are malfunctioning on this one. Perhaps him going nuclear is more than a remote possibility. Perhaps the unthinkable is actually going to happen. Oh please let it not be so. I hate being wrong on PB.
Yes, I was being unusually polite (as we are all quite rattled)
You were one of the loudest advocates, along with @Heathener for the "no way he will invade Ukraine" thesis. Sadly wrong
My worry with Putin is that he keeps saying "You don't believe that I will do this? - just you watch, I will now do this" - and then he goes and does it
He's now saying it with nukes. He's warning us he will use them, so there is - to my mind - a non-trivial chance that he will indeed use them. Or at least something non-conventional: a chemical weapon, or a dirty bomb in Chernobyl, or somesuch
Escalation is almost his only way of avoiding imminent humiliation
@Leon. Your post has shed the scales from mine eyes. I now understand. Putin is a redneck. Watch this, y'all!!!
The Ukraine war is just MTV's latest reality TV offering - Jackass Extreme.
So once you take out those who haven't heard of each person, Johnson's lack of popularity is exceeded only by Putin.
Net favorability in that poll: Zelenskyy: +60 Scholz +5 Biden -2 Macron -17 Johnson -23 Putin -90
Pleased and reassured by how flaccid the Boris Bounce is, what with him being the Heir to Churchill and Ukrainian folk hero.
I know a poll by Lord Ashcroft's organization stated that Boris was the most adored world leader in Ukraine. Has that claim been substantiated elsewhere?
Ashcroft also reports that the clown’s security guards keep having to tell him to zip up his flies.
What to do in the event of a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine. It's a difficult question. It surely draws NATO into the war, but then what? I assume they're all busy thinking about this.
An interesting option would be an overwhelming response with conventional weapons, wiping out a large chunk of the Russian invasion forces with precision weaponry but stopping short of using nuclear. It would mean only one side had crossed the Rubicon. Whether that would be militarily and logistically possible I don't know.
I was in a pub once and heard a bloke on a nearby table proclaim how much he 'liked' Putin. (This was as the time of the Salisbury attacks.) Wow. What were the chances?
Well Putin has for a while been an idol for a chunk of the fruity right - including the leading advocate of such on here - because of his muscular defence of traditional values.
Although I note Trump has said "he's changed". So maybe they've gone off him a bit now.
From being a winner to a loser. Worst possible crime.
Comments
Hmm
The snag is that the last decade has given Putin the impression of western vaccination and weakness. Turning that around is necessary but tricky.
Maybe he found out and had a strop?
always freaking out - it’s the fact there are sane, calm pro military analysts on social media: and they are freaking out. That’s freaky
Do you think Jesus knows the machine elves?
At this stage it is probably a message to 'stay butted out or else as I am about to use chemical weapons' but who the feck knows.
But with rising energy prices the cost of everything is becoming more expensive while at the same time discretionary expenditure is falling (because you have to spend money on fuel and heating, demand is inelastic). Meanwhile wage demands spiral, leading to stagflation. i.e. back to the 70s.
Usually there is an inverse relationship between the economy and inflation (the Phillips Curve) but with stagflation the economy is in the sink and prices continue to spiral, creating a vicious cycle that is hard to escape. It took the harsh medicine of Volcker at the Fed in the 80s to bring it under control in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacred_Mushroom_and_the_Cross
“This fixed-wing aircraft, a modified version of the Tupolev Tu-214 airliner, has been developed especially for the Presidential Executive Office.
Tupolev Tu-214SR, a modified version of the Tu-214, is the Russian so called ‘Doomsday Plane.’ Outfitted with a state-of-the-art multi-intelligence payload, it was designed to provide the Russian leadership with a mobile command and control center in case of a major cataclysm or a global war.”
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/u-214sr-the-russian-doomsday-plane/
Which is what you’d send into the skies if you wanted to fake a nuclear threat. Or, of course, if you wanted to actually nuke someone
I bet John Hobson would have blamed it all on Israel too..
"Hobson's early works were critical of the impact of Jewish immigration and Jewish financiers. In the 1890s he argued that large scale Jewish immigration from the Russian Partition to Western Europe harmed the interests of native workers and advocated limitations on immigration. Writing on the South African war in War in South Africa (1900), he linked the impetus towards war to "Jew Power" in South Africa and saw Johannesburg as a "New Jerusalem". Hobson wrote that "Jewish financiers", whom he saw as "parasites", manipulated the British government that danced to their "diabolical tune". According to history professor Norman Etherington, the section on financiers in Imperialism seems irrelevant to Hobson's economic discourse, and was probably included since Hobson truly believed it. Hobson was innovative in tying between 1898 and 1902 the concept of modernity, empire, and Jews together; according to Hobson, the international financiers influenced the government partially through Jewish press ownership in South Africa and London.
Hobson's analysis was widely disseminated by those opposed to the war and received significant attention. Other contemporary anti-war writers also alleged a mainly Jewish "capitalist conspiracy" was taking place. Following Hobson's January 1900 article Capitalism and Imperialism in South Africa, Labour leader Keir Hardie in February 1900 repeated the same message in paraphrased form accusing "half a dozen financial houses, many of them Jewish" of leading the UK to war. However, as the British working class tended to support the war in South Africa, Hobson's zeal in attacking "Jew Power" in South Africa and manipulation by a secret "racial confederacy" failed to attract popular support in Britain, though "anti-Alien" sentiments continued to be an issue. On the European continent, "the alleged "robbery committed by international Jewry" was invariably linked to continental antisemites (especially on the Right) with British imperialist piracy against the "plucky Boers" fighting for self-determination"."""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._A._Hobson
Unless you are Putin's personal head shrinker....
No, I don't find it surprising the EHRC did not name him.
What has he actually done to fight anti-Semitism?
Usually.
I don't think anyone has felt this way since the 1980s.
I prefer the neverending forecasts of immediate MAD.
3 cosmonauts to ISS for crew changeover
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l8fz7V7fS4
Trouble is that nukes are pretty old tech, too.
"Three independent sources report that the deputy chief of Russia's Rosgvardia (a unit of RU's interior army which has had tremendous losses in Ukraine), Gen. Roman Gavrilov has been detained by FSB. Gavrilov had also previously worked in FSO, Putin's security service."
Russia's answer to Baghdad Bob will be along soon to assure us that this was all part of the plan for day 22 of the 3 day special military operation.
🇺🇦 Volodymyr Zelenskyy: 67% (79% among those who have heard of him)
🇺🇸 Joe Biden: 40%
🇬🇧 Boris Johnson: 34%
🇫🇷 Emmanuel Macron: 28%
🇩🇪 Olaf Scholz: 16% (52% have not heard of)
🇷🇺 Vladimir Putin: 2%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1504426522005884928?s=20&t=kKxs6UwvBDBYiFD2VJpvbQ
https://www.reuters.com/world/panama-says-three-ships-hit-black-sea-since-start-ukraine-war-2022-03-16/
https://newsroompanama.com/news/panama-flagged-ship-sunk-by-russian-navy-two-more-hit
Reports other ships also attacked.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/03/17/7332085/
Anders Åslund
@anders_aslund
The incredible is about to happen: Ukraine appears to be about to defeat Russia in Ukraine. Russia allocated 100 out of its ca 170 battalion tactical groups to its assault on Ukraine. According to the Ukrainians, about 50 btgs are now out of action.
Zelensky's excellent military advisor Arestovich predicted yesterday that Ukraine could win the war in two weeks time unless something extraordinary happened. Russian troops can be expelled from the whole of Ukraine. The new US military supplies might cause the end of the war.
I cannot believe that Putin will survive a military defeat in Ukraine. He has committed every possible mistake and crime. The question is rather how and when he will end. I see that many of the oligarchs' private jets are flying from Moscow to Dubai, their last holdout.
https://twitter.com/anders_aslund/status/1504437145884373003
I suspect had the internet been around in 1983 we could have all got jolly frightened then too.
AFAICS that statement was made by a single presenter - Rachel Burden - on Jan 9 2022 in relation to her not sufficiently challenging an interviewee - John Cauldwell - who called Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite. Her statement on air is here:
https://twitter.com/antisemitism/status/1481252987289075712
The Campaign Against Antisemitism have already challenged the BBC on Jan 12 2022, on the basis of the CAA dossier of 24 incidents where they state that Corbyn demonstrated antisemitic behaviour. Reported by them here:
https://twitter.com/antisemitism/status/1481252987289075712
The CAA list of Corbyn incidents is here:
https://antisemitism.org/politics/labour/jeremy-corbyn/
At the least this is still in dispute.
Does anyone know if JC has sued the CAA?
It’s really rather pleasing that MPs will get to keep their lucrative uncapped second jobs and also receive their £2k pay rise on the same day my tax will increase to pay for the care of old people, very many of whom have more assets than me and won’t themselves be hit by the tax rise.
On top of everything else skyrocketing. Inflation’s at 8%, apparently.
Assuming we’re not all fried imminently this will knock Ukraine off the headlines here soon as people start to really feel the hit in their pockets.
It feels like the calm before this particular storm. I cannot understand for the life of me why the government isn’t doing more about all this, but rather insisting the NI rise must go ahead.
Did I hear something about the tiny Sunak doing a ‘wartime budget’ soon? Does a glorious, magnanimous, beneficent U-turn seem likely?
(I'm doing it less now, since the NYT had their brainstorm and applied Maiden Aunt censorship.)
1. The party was not "deliberately working to lose the 2017 election"
2. May increasing the Tories vote haul by 20% - an additional 2.3m votes - is what lost Labour the election
3. Which rather torpedoes the "actually Jeremy was really popular actually" argument. He was so popular that he generated millions more votes for the Tories to keep him out.
Politics and elections aren't just about what you do. Its about what your opponents do. Which is why the bullshit can't add LibDem Barchart "info"graphics of actually how Jeremy got more votes actually than Blair actually are so laughably sad. When the Tories have a majority, then add 20% more votes on top, you lose.
As for Oldknow et al, perhaps they honestly don't care less what the Trot army says about them. Which is why they aren't suing. Its the past, the people making allegations are irrelevant to them, who cares. Not so much a vast conspiracy against the Jeremy as nobody thinks its relevant any more.
Surely he would ensure that they are all in it together and stop any flights out/people leaving unless approved.
Does it mean he’s seen the end and is letting his people flee before a coup or does he not have control anymore?
The famously anti-war MP has a war chest!
https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk
For some the lack of knowledge made the existential dread worse.
% of Britons with an unfavourable view of...
🇺🇦 Volodymyr Zelenskyy: 7%
🇺🇸 Joe Biden: 42%
🇬🇧 Boris Johnson: 57%
🇫🇷 Emmanuel Macron: 45%
🇩🇪 Olaf Scholz: 11%
🇷🇺 Vladimir Putin: 92%
Seems odd that you are defending this bizarre volte – er – face.
Zelenskyy: +60
Scholz +5
Biden -2
Macron -17
Johnson -23
Putin -90
But... if Ukraine get an independent, democratic state, then Zelenskyy may have a problem. The Azov Battalion are fascists, and whilst I can understand why Ukraine wanted everyone it can to fight after 2014, they will be a prominent and armed group after the war ends.
It'll be interesting to see how he deals with them, given most of his country do not support far-right parties at the last election.
I remember seeing something about new-clear powerstations on the news (newsround, maybe) and asking my parents whether they were clear because they were made of glass.
So this is all a bit new to me - and I'm not exactly a spring chicken.
Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧
@DefenceHQ
·
46s
The UK will deploy a Sky Sabre Air Defence System to Poland and 100 personnel to operate it.
This comes at the Polish Government's request.
Sky Sabre has unprecedented speed, accuracy, performance and target acquisition, which will significantly enhance Poland’s air defences.
Wisdom remains a valuable, scarce resource, though (cough, Falklands threads ...)
One of the claims Forde is investigating is precisely whether The party HQ was not "deliberately working to lose the 2017 election"
I will wait to see what Forde finds if he finds it was I will be joining the class action.
If not shrugs shoulders.
Tories added 2.3m votes Jezza added 3.5 million votes as you know
Emilie Oldknow has won. Why would she reopen old wounds by going into a pointless battle with a bunch of bitter old trots?
Georgia, Crimea, Litvinenko, Salisbury, etc, etc show that Putin does not think of international relations in the same way we do. He as much more in common with Stalin or Hitler than he would like to think.
A Thursday without a Council by-election.
Life not worth living anyways.
God: You didn't know I posted on PB?
You've been struck by
A SMO criminal.
You were one of the loudest advocates, along with @Heathener for the "no way he will invade Ukraine" thesis. Sadly wrong
My worry with Putin is that he keeps saying "You don't believe that I will do this? - just you watch, I will now do this" - and then he goes and does it
He's now saying it with nukes. He's warning us he will use them, so there is - to my mind - a non-trivial chance that he will indeed use them. Or at least something non-conventional: a chemical weapon, or a dirty bomb in Chernobyl, or somesuch
Escalation is almost his only way of avoiding imminent humiliation
Although I note Trump has said "he's changed". So maybe they've gone off him a bit now.
When the recent build up started, it seemed incredible, but there was no way out of that becoming a major invasion.
The Ukraine war is just MTV's latest reality TV offering - Jackass Extreme.
An interesting option would be an overwhelming response with conventional weapons, wiping out a large chunk of the Russian invasion forces with precision weaponry but stopping short of using nuclear. It would mean only one side had crossed the Rubicon. Whether that would be militarily and logistically possible I don't know.
Worst possible crime.