Latest RofIreland poll from @REDCResearch for the @businessposthq - Sinn Fein still way ahead: Sinn Féin 33 Fine Gael 19 (-1 in four weeks) Fianna Fáil 16 (-1) Green Party 5 Social Democrats 5 (+1) Labour 5 (+1) PBP-Solidarity 3 Aontú 2 Independents 11 (Poll: March 18-23)
Sinn Fein now extremely consistent at 33% in the RoI polls now and this should easily get them 60+ seats in 2025.
Fine Gael also now dropping below 20% for the first time since 2005.
Better poll for the smaller parties than the Behaviour and attitudes poll due to a possibly different methodology.
The most interesting thing is the relative resilience of the Irish Greens despite the collapse of FF and FG. I don't know how this plays out seatswise though in the greater Dublin area.
A Sinn Fein government chills my blood but it looks like it could well happen.
Goodness knows why. It seems to be an Irish version of Corbynism except it's got even more traction.
33% for SF is just 1% more than Corbyn Labour got in 2019 and 7% less than Corbyn Labour got here in 2017 for perspective.
Do not forget either the combined score for the FF and FG government is 35% ie 2% more than SF. Ireland is also STV PR not FPTP
I'm not ruling out the possibility of FF+FG scraping a majority and somehow locking SF put of power but they would surely need to at least be at 40% combined to achieve that. SF as largest party is probably inevitable. A combined FF+FG vote of 35% must be a record low?
Slide in the FG vote is interesting as I thought they would be holding up a lot better than FF. Varadakar's appeals to Dublin Metro voters aren't working.
I think a SF-FF majority is possiblyan undervalued prospect TBH and SF will be surpringly centrist if they do get into gvt as they already have the young vote in the bag.
If SF gets more than 35%, they could really take off in seats though as remember FG got 76 seats on 36% in 2011 even accounting for SF being marginally less transfer friendly.
The large number of independent TDs currently being elected makes it difficult to shut SF out. SF only received 24.5% of the vote last time, would have won more TDs if they'd stood more candidates, and FF and FG had to call on the Greens to keep SF out.
If SF really do poll above 30% then it will almost certainly be impossible to keep them out of government.
In many constituencies, independents stand to gain transfers from SF voters at higher rate than almost all other parties. Seeing as how core SFers were (and guessing still are to above-average degree) famously adverse to giving non-SF candidates any preferences.
Rather like Le Pens repositioning, have SF not pulled themselves towards political centre, honed a “modern party of the common people” message, to be able to swell their voter base even more going forward - especially when playing on their own modernity against the arch conservatism of FG FF and many of the independents?
rcs100 - I have heard good things about the Ian Toll's Pacific war trilogy, and it is on my "sometime" list. But first I plan to read his "Six Frigates", which I have had for about a year, but not even started.
Incidentally, our local monopoly newspaper, the Seattle Times, regularly (including today) has articles and columns about the Japanese internment in this area, but has never mentioned the Manila massacre during the decades that I have been reading it. NHK World, which I occasionally watch, has a similar policy.
Latest RofIreland poll from @REDCResearch for the @businessposthq - Sinn Fein still way ahead: Sinn Féin 33 Fine Gael 19 (-1 in four weeks) Fianna Fáil 16 (-1) Green Party 5 Social Democrats 5 (+1) Labour 5 (+1) PBP-Solidarity 3 Aontú 2 Independents 11 (Poll: March 18-23)
Sinn Fein now extremely consistent at 33% in the RoI polls now and this should easily get them 60+ seats in 2025.
Fine Gael also now dropping below 20% for the first time since 2005.
Better poll for the smaller parties than the Behaviour and attitudes poll due to a possibly different methodology.
The most interesting thing is the relative resilience of the Irish Greens despite the collapse of FF and FG. I don't know how this plays out seatswise though in the greater Dublin area.
A Sinn Fein government chills my blood but it looks like it could well happen.
Goodness knows why. It seems to be an Irish version of Corbynism except it's got even more traction.
Ireland seems to have shifted very heavily left for some reason. Overall, the left wing vote is 51% in that poll, to 37% for the right.
I don't think it's that surprising TBH - there has been a consistent opening for the centre left in Ireland for a while but the Irish Labour Party has always gone into coalition with FG and got destroyed up to now. The opposition had to go somewhere and SF is effectively a bog standard centre left party now in RoI at least and is merely just being somewhat populist in opposition with FF and FG not delivering for younger voters.
I think the next election will be different as FF at least will not be able to completely rule out cooperation with Sinn Fein.
I don't see why anyone is surprised Ireland is amoral enough to elect a Sinn Fein government. This is the country that shelters under others' defence umbrella, leeches off others' tax base, let women die from lack of abortion access and were neutral against the Nazis.
Spain was neutral against the Nazis (volunteer "Blue Division" notwithstanding) Portugal was neutral against the Nazis Switzerland was neutral against the Nazis Sweden was neutral against the Nazis
More Frenchmen fought for Axis countries than for the Allies.
Wasn't there conscription of adult French men?
Several 100 000 French were used as forced labour in Germany with the collaboration of the Vichy government which was a kind of conscription I guess.
That was while Vichy existed. After it 'fell', and was absorbed into the Reich, then all men below a certain age (50?) were liable for conscription.
No. The Germans did not use conscription from the general French population. What they had was Service du Travail Obligatoire (STO) which was used to provide forced labour in Germany to compensate for the loss of manpower due to the deteriorating situation on the Eastern Front. STO provided labourers (often under slave like conditions) not soldiers. And by the time Vichy fell in late summer of 1944, much of France had already been liberated and the Germans were in full scale retreat so there was very little of France for them to obtain workers from.
The only area of France that had conscription was Alsace and Lorraine which the Germans claimed was Germany anyway. A lot of the troops in the 2nd SS Panzer Division which committed the atrocities at Thule and Oradour sur Glane in June 1944 were Alsatian French/Germans.
Latest RofIreland poll from @REDCResearch for the @businessposthq - Sinn Fein still way ahead: Sinn Féin 33 Fine Gael 19 (-1 in four weeks) Fianna Fáil 16 (-1) Green Party 5 Social Democrats 5 (+1) Labour 5 (+1) PBP-Solidarity 3 Aontú 2 Independents 11 (Poll: March 18-23)
Sinn Fein now extremely consistent at 33% in the RoI polls now and this should easily get them 60+ seats in 2025.
Fine Gael also now dropping below 20% for the first time since 2005.
Better poll for the smaller parties than the Behaviour and attitudes poll due to a possibly different methodology.
The most interesting thing is the relative resilience of the Irish Greens despite the collapse of FF and FG. I don't know how this plays out seatswise though in the greater Dublin area.
A Sinn Fein government chills my blood but it looks like it could well happen.
Goodness knows why. It seems to be an Irish version of Corbynism except it's got even more traction.
33% for SF is just 1% more than Corbyn Labour got in 2019 and 7% less than Corbyn Labour got here in 2017 for perspective.
Do not forget either the combined score for the FF and FG government is 35% ie 2% more than SF. Ireland is also STV PR not FPTP
I'm not ruling out the possibility of FF+FG scraping a majority and somehow locking SF put of power but they would surely need to at least be at 40% combined to achieve that. SF as largest party is probably inevitable. A combined FF+FG vote of 35% must be a record low?
Slide in the FG vote is interesting as I thought they would be holding up a lot better than FF. Varadakar's appeals to Dublin Metro voters aren't working.
I think a SF-FF majority is possiblyan undervalued prospect TBH and SF will be surpringly centrist if they do get into gvt as they already have the young vote in the bag.
If SF gets more than 35%, they could really take off in seats though as remember FG got 76 seats on 36% in 2011 even accounting for SF being marginally less transfer friendly.
The large number of independent TDs currently being elected makes it difficult to shut SF out. SF only received 24.5% of the vote last time, would have won more TDs if they'd stood more candidates, and FF and FG had to call on the Greens to keep SF out.
If SF really do poll above 30% then it will almost certainly be impossible to keep them out of government.
In many constituencies, independents stand to gain transfers from SF voters at higher rate than almost all other parties. Seeing as how core SFers were (and guessing still are to above-average degree) famously adverse to giving non-SF candidates any preferences.
Rather like Le Pens repositioning, have SF not pulled themselves towards political centre, honed a “modern party of the common people” message, to be able to swell their voter base even more going forward - especially when playing on their own modernity against the arch conservatism of FG FF and many of the independents?
Here I go commentating on Irish politics. What do I know about Irish Politics? I should tap out before embarrassing myself 😆
But here goes. In all honesty. I have only been in Ireland twice in my life, and that was with Horse-racing in mind. And I am left from the experience genuinely believing the Irish are a friendly and hospitable people to everyone from around the world - unless you speak with a British accent. Ten years ago when I first went over, I actually had this naive idea green politics could grow in Ireland - before I now appreciate Irish politics is shaped and dominated by Nationalism.
Interestingly, Green is a major player in German politics, but can’t make a mark in France, can we put this down to the same as in Ireland, politics already more strongly shaped by nationalism?
Please correct me where wrong, the last hundred years of Irish politics shaped by pretty much the one thing - Collins deal with the British. They were all basically on the same side, Irish land and freedom, but those who accepted deal followed Collins into government quickly became FG, those who didn’t then later became known as FF when in government, fought a bloody civil war with Collins British backed government (backed by hated Black and Tan security force) and then there was a truce, and the IRA people fought on in another split (maybe partly class based) especially when FF kicked FG out of government and governed well and took strangle hold on something they fought bloody civil war arguing was wrong. 🤦♀️
The actual political ideology of the IRA makes no sense to me in how it flip flops. 1926 to 36 very socialist or even communist, but in mid thirties turned rather fascist and cuddled up to euro,and world Fascism. Peaky blinders is touching on this, but I think jumped the gun a bit early in their timings.
Latest RofIreland poll from @REDCResearch for the @businessposthq - Sinn Fein still way ahead: Sinn Féin 33 Fine Gael 19 (-1 in four weeks) Fianna Fáil 16 (-1) Green Party 5 Social Democrats 5 (+1) Labour 5 (+1) PBP-Solidarity 3 Aontú 2 Independents 11 (Poll: March 18-23)
Sinn Fein now extremely consistent at 33% in the RoI polls now and this should easily get them 60+ seats in 2025.
Fine Gael also now dropping below 20% for the first time since 2005.
Better poll for the smaller parties than the Behaviour and attitudes poll due to a possibly different methodology.
The most interesting thing is the relative resilience of the Irish Greens despite the collapse of FF and FG. I don't know how this plays out seatswise though in the greater Dublin area.
A Sinn Fein government chills my blood but it looks like it could well happen.
Goodness knows why. It seems to be an Irish version of Corbynism except it's got even more traction.
Ireland seems to have shifted very heavily left for some reason. Overall, the left wing vote is 51% in that poll, to 37% for the right.
I don't think it's that surprising TBH - there has been a consistent opening for the centre left in Ireland for a while but the Irish Labour Party has always gone into coalition with FG and got destroyed up to now. The opposition had to go somewhere and SF is effectively a bog standard centre left party now in RoI at least and is merely just being somewhat populist in opposition with FF and FG not delivering for younger voters.
I think the next election will be different as FF at least will not be able to completely rule out cooperation with Sinn Fein.
I don't see why anyone is surprised Ireland is amoral enough to elect a Sinn Fein government. This is the country that shelters under others' defence umbrella, leeches off others' tax base, let women die from lack of abortion access and were neutral against the Nazis.
Spain was neutral against the Nazis (volunteer "Blue Division" notwithstanding) Portugal was neutral against the Nazis Switzerland was neutral against the Nazis Sweden was neutral against the Nazis
More Frenchmen fought for Axis countries than for the Allies.
Wasn't there conscription of adult French men?
Several 100 000 French were used as forced labour in Germany with the collaboration of the Vichy government which was a kind of conscription I guess.
That was while Vichy existed. After it 'fell', and was absorbed into the Reich, then all men below a certain age (50?) were liable for conscription.
No. The Germans did not use conscription from the general French population. What they had was Service du Travail Obligatoire (STO) which was used to provide forced labour in Germany to compensate for the loss of manpower due to the deteriorating situation on the Eastern Front. STO provided labourers (often under slave like conditions) not soldiers. And by the time Vichy fell in late summer of 1944, much of France had already been liberated and the Germans were in full scale retreat so there was very little of France for them to obtain workers from.
The only area of France that had conscription was Alsace and Lorraine which the Germans claimed was Germany anyway. A lot of the troops in the 2nd SS Panzer Division which committed the atrocities at Thule and Oradour sur Glane in June 1944 were Alsatian French/Germans.
One corollary of the Nazis' removal of fighting-age Frenchmen to labour camps is that the French Resistance largely consisted of, like our Home Guard, elderly veterans and the young, except with added women. This can be seen in the BBC's comedy documentary series, 'Allo 'Allo.
Latest RofIreland poll from @REDCResearch for the @businessposthq - Sinn Fein still way ahead: Sinn Féin 33 Fine Gael 19 (-1 in four weeks) Fianna Fáil 16 (-1) Green Party 5 Social Democrats 5 (+1) Labour 5 (+1) PBP-Solidarity 3 Aontú 2 Independents 11 (Poll: March 18-23)
Sinn Fein now extremely consistent at 33% in the RoI polls now and this should easily get them 60+ seats in 2025.
Fine Gael also now dropping below 20% for the first time since 2005.
Better poll for the smaller parties than the Behaviour and attitudes poll due to a possibly different methodology.
The most interesting thing is the relative resilience of the Irish Greens despite the collapse of FF and FG. I don't know how this plays out seatswise though in the greater Dublin area.
A Sinn Fein government chills my blood but it looks like it could well happen.
Goodness knows why. It seems to be an Irish version of Corbynism except it's got even more traction.
Ireland seems to have shifted very heavily left for some reason. Overall, the left wing vote is 51% in that poll, to 37% for the right.
I don't think it's that surprising TBH - there has been a consistent opening for the centre left in Ireland for a while but the Irish Labour Party has always gone into coalition with FG and got destroyed up to now. The opposition had to go somewhere and SF is effectively a bog standard centre left party now in RoI at least and is merely just being somewhat populist in opposition with FF and FG not delivering for younger voters.
I think the next election will be different as FF at least will not be able to completely rule out cooperation with Sinn Fein.
I don't see why anyone is surprised Ireland is amoral enough to elect a Sinn Fein government. This is the country that shelters under others' defence umbrella, leeches off others' tax base, let women die from lack of abortion access and were neutral against the Nazis.
Spain was neutral against the Nazis (volunteer "Blue Division" notwithstanding) Portugal was neutral against the Nazis Switzerland was neutral against the Nazis Sweden was neutral against the Nazis
More Frenchmen fought for Axis countries than for the Allies.
Wasn't there conscription of adult French men?
Several 100 000 French were used as forced labour in Germany with the collaboration of the Vichy government which was a kind of conscription I guess.
That was while Vichy existed. After it 'fell', and was absorbed into the Reich, then all men below a certain age (50?) were liable for conscription.
No. The Germans did not use conscription from the general French population. What they had was Service du Travail Obligatoire (STO) which was used to provide forced labour in Germany to compensate for the loss of manpower due to the deteriorating situation on the Eastern Front. STO provided labourers (often under slave like conditions) not soldiers. And by the time Vichy fell in late summer of 1944, much of France had already been liberated and the Germans were in full scale retreat so there was very little of France for them to obtain workers from.
The only area of France that had conscription was Alsace and Lorraine which the Germans claimed was Germany anyway. A lot of the troops in the 2nd SS Panzer Division which committed the atrocities at Thule and Oradour sur Glane in June 1944 were Alsatian French/Germans.
One corollary of the Nazis' removal of fighting-age Frenchmen to labour camps is that the French Resistance largely consisted of, like our Home Guard, elderly veterans and the young, except with added women. This can be seen in the BBC's comedy documentary series, 'Allo 'Allo.
Actually pretty much the opposite. As a result of STO over 200,000 Frenchmen of fighting age dropped out of society completely to void being deported and joined the Maquis. Only about a quarter of them actually fought. The rest were simply hiding in the hills. But it was a massive driver for Frenchmen to join the various resistance groups.
Latest RofIreland poll from @REDCResearch for the @businessposthq - Sinn Fein still way ahead: Sinn Féin 33 Fine Gael 19 (-1 in four weeks) Fianna Fáil 16 (-1) Green Party 5 Social Democrats 5 (+1) Labour 5 (+1) PBP-Solidarity 3 Aontú 2 Independents 11 (Poll: March 18-23)
Sinn Fein now extremely consistent at 33% in the RoI polls now and this should easily get them 60+ seats in 2025.
Fine Gael also now dropping below 20% for the first time since 2005.
Better poll for the smaller parties than the Behaviour and attitudes poll due to a possibly different methodology.
The most interesting thing is the relative resilience of the Irish Greens despite the collapse of FF and FG. I don't know how this plays out seatswise though in the greater Dublin area.
A Sinn Fein government chills my blood but it looks like it could well happen.
Goodness knows why. It seems to be an Irish version of Corbynism except it's got even more traction.
Ireland seems to have shifted very heavily left for some reason. Overall, the left wing vote is 51% in that poll, to 37% for the right.
I don't think it's that surprising TBH - there has been a consistent opening for the centre left in Ireland for a while but the Irish Labour Party has always gone into coalition with FG and got destroyed up to now. The opposition had to go somewhere and SF is effectively a bog standard centre left party now in RoI at least and is merely just being somewhat populist in opposition with FF and FG not delivering for younger voters.
I think the next election will be different as FF at least will not be able to completely rule out cooperation with Sinn Fein.
I don't see why anyone is surprised Ireland is amoral enough to elect a Sinn Fein government. This is the country that shelters under others' defence umbrella, leeches off others' tax base, let women die from lack of abortion access and were neutral against the Nazis.
Spain was neutral against the Nazis (volunteer "Blue Division" notwithstanding) Portugal was neutral against the Nazis Switzerland was neutral against the Nazis Sweden was neutral against the Nazis
More Frenchmen fought for Axis countries than for the Allies.
Wasn't there conscription of adult French men?
Several 100 000 French were used as forced labour in Germany with the collaboration of the Vichy government which was a kind of conscription I guess.
That was while Vichy existed. After it 'fell', and was absorbed into the Reich, then all men below a certain age (50?) were liable for conscription.
No. The Germans did not use conscription from the general French population. What they had was Service du Travail Obligatoire (STO) which was used to provide forced labour in Germany to compensate for the loss of manpower due to the deteriorating situation on the Eastern Front. STO provided labourers (often under slave like conditions) not soldiers. And by the time Vichy fell in late summer of 1944, much of France had already been liberated and the Germans were in full scale retreat so there was very little of France for them to obtain workers from.
The only area of France that had conscription was Alsace and Lorraine which the Germans claimed was Germany anyway. A lot of the troops in the 2nd SS Panzer Division which committed the atrocities at Thule and Oradour sur Glane in June 1944 were Alsatian French/Germans.
rcs100 - I have heard good things about the Ian Toll's Pacific war trilogy, and it is on my "sometime" list. But first I plan to read his "Six Frigates", which I have had for about a year, but not even started.
Incidentally, our local monopoly newspaper, the Seattle Times, regularly (including today) has articles and columns about the Japanese internment in this area, but has never mentioned the Manila massacre during the decades that I have been reading it. NHK World, which I occasionally watch, has a similar policy.
Six Frigates is a good book, but not an amazing one.
The Pacific War trilogy, by contrast, is the best general history series I have ever read.
"AI hospital forecasting to reduce NHS waiting lists
Hospitals will be able to predict daily A&E admissions weeks in advance using artificial intelligence software that analyses data including 111 calls and the weather. It is being introduced in 100 NHS hospital trusts today after trials showed it had an “impressive” ability to forecast daily admissions, broken down by age, up to three weeks in advance."
I read a memoire by someone who was an officer in WW11, I can't recall the book - I think it is well known. In it he describes an incident in France where after heavy fighting he is with a trusted NCO who has been through a lot of action and they come across a Frenchman robbing the corpses of British soldiers. The NCO empties his gun into the robber. I asked myself in all honesty what I would have done as the officer in those circumstances and the answer is nothing.
I think murder is worse than robbing corpses. i personally strive to do neither.
That isn't a comment on the moral dilemma of the officer.
Ideally he should have arrested the the murderer, if circumstances allowed it to be done relatively safely. There's no moral dilemma at all, only a practical one.
Just as under the relevant national law, anyone who knew where Anne Frank was, 1942-44, was under a duty to report the fact to the authorities.
There's no moral dilemma at all, only a practical one.
Uh, no. I'm not saying murder is wrong because it's illegal, I'm saying it's just wrong. I didn't think that was controversial.
Well, it rather boringly, is. Assassinating Hitler would have been murder, at any time and in any country. You got a problem with it?
No, I don't. But I have a sounds basis for thinking so. you operate within the law when the law is available as a practical remedy. When it comes to a genocidal maniac who is the head of a legion fascist fuckheads, then murder is the only practical response. The only other realistic alternative is letting him live, and that's worse.
Contrast that with someone robbing corpses. A nasty business, very unpleasant. But is the world a better place for appointing yourself Judge Judy and executioner, and upon witnessing it dispensing the ultimate punishment? I think no, the world is better served not killing people for such actions. If your only choice is between a corpse robber going free or me becoming a murderer, I choose the corpse robber's freedom. I would kill, but it would need to be for something MUCH worse than seeing some stealing from a dead guy.
You would almost certainly feel differently, if you were actually fighting in a war.
It's all too easy to insist that one have clean hands - until one actually fights.
I read a memoire by someone who was an officer in WW11, I can't recall the book - I think it is well known. In it he describes an incident in France where after heavy fighting he is with a trusted NCO who has been through a lot of action and they come across a Frenchman robbing the corpses of British soldiers. The NCO empties his gun into the robber. I asked myself in all honesty what I would have done as the officer in those circumstances and the answer is nothing.
I think murder is worse than robbing corpses. i personally strive to do neither.
That isn't a comment on the moral dilemma of the officer.
Ideally he should have arrested the the murderer, if circumstances allowed it to be done relatively safely. There's no moral dilemma at all, only a practical one.
Just as under the relevant national law, anyone who knew where Anne Frank was, 1942-44, was under a duty to report the fact to the authorities.
There's no moral dilemma at all, only a practical one.
Uh, no. I'm not saying murder is wrong because it's illegal, I'm saying it's just wrong. I didn't think that was controversial.
Well, it rather boringly, is. Assassinating Hitler would have been murder, at any time and in any country. You got a problem with it?
Barry Pepper in 'Saving Private Ryan': "Well, what I mean by that, sir, is... if you was to put me and this here sniper rifle anywhere up to and including one mile of Adolf Hitler with a clear line of sight, sir... pack your bags, fellas, war's over. Amen."
There would be have been nothing illegal, under English law, about assassinating Hitler, in WWII.
I read a memoire by someone who was an officer in WW11, I can't recall the book - I think it is well known. In it he describes an incident in France where after heavy fighting he is with a trusted NCO who has been through a lot of action and they come across a Frenchman robbing the corpses of British soldiers. The NCO empties his gun into the robber. I asked myself in all honesty what I would have done as the officer in those circumstances and the answer is nothing.
I think murder is worse than robbing corpses. i personally strive to do neither.
That isn't a comment on the moral dilemma of the officer.
Ideally he should have arrested the the murderer, if circumstances allowed it to be done relatively safely. There's no moral dilemma at all, only a practical one.
Just as under the relevant national law, anyone who knew where Anne Frank was, 1942-44, was under a duty to report the fact to the authorities.
There's no moral dilemma at all, only a practical one.
Uh, no. I'm not saying murder is wrong because it's illegal, I'm saying it's just wrong. I didn't think that was controversial.
Well, it rather boringly, is. Assassinating Hitler would have been murder, at any time and in any country. You got a problem with it?
No, I don't. But I have a sounds basis for thinking so. you operate within the law when the law is available as a practical remedy. When it comes to a genocidal maniac who is the head of a legion fascist fuckheads, then murder is the only practical response. The only other realistic alternative is letting him live, and that's worse.
Contrast that with someone robbing corpses. A nasty business, very unpleasant. But is the world a better place for appointing yourself Judge Judy and executioner, and upon witnessing it dispensing the ultimate punishment? I think no, the world is better served not killing people for such actions. If your only choice is between a corpse robber going free or me becoming a murderer, I choose the corpse robber's freedom. I would kill, but it would need to be for something MUCH worse than seeing some stealing from a dead guy.
All very A Level Philosophy, well done, B-, the more interesting question is: would you, the officer, arrest the NCO who shot the corpse-robber? Given what the NCO had been through, I doubt I would. I’d probably have tutted, and moved on
I am quite certain that I would not have arrested the NCO, had I been the officer.
DUP fails to narrow gap with SF & MO'N remains on course to be First Minister. TUV support down
🔷SF 26% (+1 from Jan)
🔷DUP 19% (+2)
🔷Alliance 16% (+2)
🔷UUP 13% (-1)
🔷SDLP 11% (-)
🔷TUV 9% (-3)
Better for SF than I expected (loyalist f*ckwittery possibly playing into their hands) and interesting they are doing well at the same time as Alliance increasing and SDLP holding up. Only real movement would appear to be from TUV to DUP.
This poll does not look great for unionism TBH as 40% is pretty much the combined DUP+UUP+TUV floor and the DUP is likely to lose more seats than the UUP and TUV gain, who are both unlikely to gain more than a couple.
The 41% for the three Unionist parties compares to the aggregate 43.6% they received in 2017.
Interesting that the aggregate for SF & SDLP is down by a similar amount (2.8pp).
Yes the combined SF+SDLP vote is also pretty much the same as in the 2019 GE, ditto the alliance vote. I still feel that the Alliance surge will mainly damage the DUP though.
On a bad night for the DUP they could get only one seat in Belfast N for example:
SF 2 (-) DUP 1 (-1) SDLP 1 (-) Alliance 1 (+1)
My eyes are also firmly on Belfast S and Lagan Valley.
There are two Unionist seats in North Belfast, on this poll. The likeliest seat to go to Alliance is Sinn Fein or SDLP.
NorthofStoke said ". . . I assume that small scale "war crimes" are perpetrated by all sides in all conflicts. "
There are a number of examples supporting your conclusion in Rick Atkinson's "Liberation Trilogy", which tells the story of the American army in WW II, in North Africa and Europe.
Here's one that sticks in my mind. At the end of the war, American soldiers liberated a concentration camp. The SS guards had surrendered. But when the Americans saw the horrible condition of the prisoners, they shot the SS guards anyway. When Eisenhower heard about it, he called for an investigation, but Atkinson doesn't say that actually happened.
(I would modify your statement slightly, adding this qualifier: "in all large conflicts".)
One of the greatest war crimes in World War II was the "Manila massacre", where the Japanese murdered at least 100,000 Filipino civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre (As far as I know, they didn't gain any military advantage from the murders.)
You must read the Ian Toll trilogy on the Pacific War - it has a whole chapter on Japanese war crimes towards the end of the conflict. Really awful, scary stuff. The Japanese soldiers knew they were doomed, and so they decided 'fuck it, we'll kill and rape everyone.'
The Imperial Japanese Army was sickeningly cruel. They deserved everything they got at the hands of US forces.
Slightly off topic but I’m starting to think that Biden’s comments about the need for regime change in Russia, while unscripted, may turn out to be a work of unintentional genius. For several weeks, we’ve worried about what Putin may or may not do, and the risk of nuclear war etc. I suspect now, with these remarks, the shoe is on the other foot ie the Russians might be concerned about how far the US will go and / or whether Biden is nuts enough to go full on.
Wrong but ultimately right, I think. Biden's remarks are unhelpful because (a) no-one is quite clear what he means in a situation where absolute clarity is required; (b) it makes the argument about who is the Russian president rather than the unacceptable actions of the Russian state.
He is ultimately right because Russia must be defeated, and Russians must believe they are defeated, to draw a line on unprovoked aggression against neighbouring countries and on systematic war crimes. In effect Russia cannot be defeated while Putin stays in power.
There is no real distinction between Putin and the Russian state as far as decisions to take action are concerned. It was very clear that the invasion was his decision alone. There hasn’t been an argument about who is the Russian president for a good couple of decades.
Slightly off topic but I’m starting to think that Biden’s comments about the need for regime change in Russia, while unscripted, may turn out to be a work of unintentional genius. For several weeks, we’ve worried about what Putin may or may not do, and the risk of nuclear war etc. I suspect now, with these remarks, the shoe is on the other foot ie the Russians might be concerned about how far the US will go and / or whether Biden is nuts enough to go full on.
Wrong but ultimately right, I think. Biden's remarks are unhelpful because (a) no-one is quite clear what he means in a situation where absolute clarity is required; (b) it makes the argument about who is the Russian president rather than the unacceptable actions of the Russian state.
He is ultimately right because Russia must be defeated, and Russians must believe they are defeated, to draw a line on unprovoked aggression against neighbouring countries and on systematic war crimes. In effect Russia cannot be defeated while Putin stays in power.
Russia doesn't need to be defeated. It just needs democracy.
In this instance, the second notion only happens after the first.
Putin needs defeated, but Putin isn't Russia. They could elbow him off a balcony tomorrow, and decide to pack up and go home, ready for a new era without anything more than Putin's skull being broken.
He has remained quite popular, though. How much that might change as a result of this disastrous invasion is yet to be seen.
Unlike Mariupol, whose suffering is considerably greater, it is neither completely cut off, nor are there regular incursions by Russian troops, so @Luckyguy1983 can read in some detail what’s happening there.
Nice for us Deafos to have CODA win best picture at the Oscars. A bit of visibility for a chronically invisible disability that afflicts a surprisingly large % of the population to some degree.
Credit to Apple, also. Not just for backing the film, but for the fantastic deaf accessibility they build into their products.
Apple have genuinely made my quality of life a whole lot better since getting both an iPhone, and an iPhone compatible hearing aid.
Nice for us Deafos to have CODA win best picture at the Oscars. A bit of visibility for a chronically invisible disability that afflicts a surprisingly large % of the population to some degree.
Credit to Apple, also. Not just for backing the film, but for the fantastic deaf accessibility they build into their products.
Apple have genuinely made my quality of life a whole lot better since getting both an iPhone, and an iPhone compatible hearing aid.
Agree with TSE on this. Everytime Johnson tries to raise covid "success" (which is a myth) Labour and the good boys at Led by Donkeys will eviscerate him with party pics.
Meanwhile, if you want a heart-warming read this morning about Ukrainian resistance to the invasion there's a brilliant piece in The Guardian about the specialist IT drone operators. In a horrible, deadly, war this will put a smile on your face.
I'm not exactly a fan of Biden right now and as many papers are suggesting, he's becoming something of a liability and a "doddery old fool".
However, I can't actually see what's wrong with calling for Putin's removal? Surely that's exactly what we want and should be working for? Genuine question.
Is the issue about inflaming Putin's wrath? If so, why the hell are we letting this ogre bully us all the time? Does no one in the west apart from Zelensky have the courage to stand up to Putin? If we don't then he will go on and on and on bullying.
p.s. and, no, I'm not sitting in a Moscow department and no I'm not a Russian d̶o̶l̶l̶ troll.
Bellingcat, partnering with the BBC and @the_ins_ru, can reveal that popular Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was closely followed by the same assassination squad that targeted Navalny and other opposition figures for 10 months prior to his murder
The assassination team followed Nemtsov on multiple trips up until one week before his murder, when they switched targets to Nemtsov's close ally Vladimir Kara-Murza. Data used in this investigation was verified by the BBC.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
Using terms like: "prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals" is not a good way to persuade people you are not a troll.
And people are perfectly free to 'broaden perspectives'. And others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
Does that justify a violent attack? How many 'copycats' will comedians now be facing every time a joke offends?
Agree with TSE on this. Everytime Johnson tries to raise covid "success" (which is a myth) Labour and the good boys at Led by Donkeys will eviscerate him with party pics.
Meanwhile, if you want a heart-warming read this morning about Ukrainian resistance to the invasion there's a brilliant piece in The Guardian about the specialist IT drone operators. In a horrible, deadly, war this will put a smile on your face.
You’re forgetting the brutal Marina Hyde columns and Susie Dent throwing ‘shade’ at Boris with her word of the day. Boris must be terrified of them. Part of the central dads official opposition along with the genius of Led By Donkeys.
Theresa May’s solution for the Irish border was for the UK to stay in the customs union until a technical solution could be found.
That was destroyed, essentially by the Brexit hard gang, egged on by then king over the water, Boris Johnson.
Boris and the ERGers own the Irish problem, just as they do the decline of UK export performance.
(All of this was predicted by Remainers).
Of course if PM Starmer wins the next general election he will likely just reheat May's Deal, to go full back into the EEA plus free movement risks him losing the redwall and he obviously thinks Boris' deal is too hard Brexit.
So May might have the last laugh yet
No. Dynamic alignment to the SM, particularly on food and agriculture gets rid of most of the hassle on the Irish Sea border and for that matter the Dover one. Not even 10% of Leavers would be bothered by that. Not least because EU regulations are by and large very good.
So would equivalence.
The EU should indeed offer equivalence on food and ag.
Although it’s not a full excuse, it’s possible they have been put off by noises within the Tory party for a reduction in food standards to better attract a US trade deal.
They may at some point have thought they could bounce us into some form of dynamic alignment via the protocol (for NI or the whole UK). Equivalence would give the EU power, of course, since they could always withdraw it. I would have thought they would want that power.
I think the proposal was the EU would guarantee equivalence as long as the UK maintained alignment. This includes dynamic alignment. The UK could get off the train at any point, at the risk of losing equivalence.
Frost was very opposed to an approach that went against the spirit of Brexit and preferred to do without equivalence from the get-go.
That’s not equivalence - that’s dynamic alignment that they are calling “equivalence”.
Equivalence is saying “we recognise you are a mature democracy with suitably high standards so do what you want and we reserve the right to change our minds if you do something silly”
Dynamic alignment is saying “you will do what we tell you to do”
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
Does that justify a violent attack? How many 'copycats' will comedians now be facing every time a joke offends?
I rarely agree with professional Northerner Kevin Maguire but he’s right on this. If it was his wife who had slapped him that is one thing but Smith was out of order.
Hello everyone; you wouldn't think we should be welcoming Spring here. Cold and foggy!
I do agree with Heathener about the story about the drone operators in the Guardian. Positive, although whether it's future of warfare I doubt. The drones seem quite easy to block, although doing so also blocks ones own drones. At the moment, anyway.
Violence is more likely if Boris does not trigger Art 16 now.
Most Unionists of course oppose the NIP
So the logic is that Unionists already pissed off by lack of Article 16 will be even aggravated by the increase in support for Sinn Féin. So better trigger A16 to hopefully reduce the chances of them being violent?
The EU were warned if they focused solely on avoiding a hard border in Ireland to avoid a return to violence by the IRA they risked a return to violence by loyalist paramilitaries like the UVF if they insisted on demanding a border in the Irish Sea for a UK and EU trade deal rather than finding a technical solution as the UK government wanted.
The EU and Dublin ploughed on regardless and the UVF bomb threat last week is the result.
There is of course NO increase in support for SF, latest Stormont poll has SF on 23%, down on the 27% they got in 2017
Before @HYFUD gets jumped on for his comment, he has a point. The talks around the risks to the Good Friday agreement on the border talks all came from one direction ie the worry that the IRA would start off again. Very few mentioned the opposite side of the coin ie what would the Unionists do. You might find one or two articles on it but the vast majority of opinion - mainly pushed by people who didn’t want Brexit - was the risk of what the Republicans would do.
Which is true, but that is why it was so damn stupid of Johnson to plonk the border in the Irish Sea as the EU wanted rather than keep the whole UK in the single market until a solution was found.
Which would likely have seen the Brexit Party get 15 to 20% of the vote in 2019, no Brexit still and no Tory majority.
What Boris proposed instead was a technical solution
What Johnson proposed was giving in to all the EU's demands and hoping something would turn up later.
It hasn't, and that's now a problem without an obvious solution.
Which is why the EU's idea was such a stupid idea, and Johnson was stupider still to accept it.
The solution is likely either a technical solution following Boris triggering Article 16 or closer alignment to the SM and CU under a PM Starmer.
I've exported and imported. I'm guessing you haven't. How would this technical solution work? I don't mean the details just the basics.
The basic principle is trusted trader.
Someone who is approved to ship goods into NI from the UK without checks
Products have a sticker on them “not for resale in RoI”
Spot checks exist to ensure compliance
You accept that there may be a small percentage of smuggling and use intelligence led policing to try and catch it
You obviously don't export/import either. So what about the vast majority who won't have that status and won't go into special warehouses. What about temporary exports eg demo stuff, Grand Prix stuff and such like, touring bands. I did lots of that. Had to go thru customs everytime.
If there was a technical solution they would have done it. They haven't, anywhere.
Most of my business is export, albeit invisibles not trade.
But you asked for the basics not the details… the trusted trader scheme captured 95% of volume relatively easily
But nothing like 95% of exporters/importers. No idea what the figure is but would not be surprised if under 10%. I asked for basic because I knew HYUFD wouldn't have a clue. Just comes up with 'technical solution ' without a clue what that is. Trusted Trader scheme is not a solution. You only have to look at Norway/Sweden where they have very amicable arrangements with a lot of tech and still waits are typically a couple of hours.
Sure but from a macro perspective it’s volume that counts. Of course it is nowhere near 95% of import/export firms.
I think it’s a few hundred firms (from memory) - I’d also add eBay/Amazon as processing agents which would also catch a lot of small traders.
Yes but the point is there is therefore not a technical solution for the vast majority, so for anyone to suggest there is, is nonsense.
In my case I commonly did temporary exports pre the removal of controls. Not once did stuff go straight through. Normally only held up for an hour or so, but it was always very limited stuff, so god knows what a McLaren lorry or a Rolling Stones tour lorry goes through, and once it took 3 weeks for one item.
I’m scratching my head here.
There is a problem with the flow of goods.
This solves the problem for the vast bulk of the goods.
It does not - and does not try to - solve the problem for the vast majority of *traders*
Your issue is not the problem that needs fixing - in fact the EU complained about the number of firms that the UK planned to include in the trusted trader scheme
I read a memoire by someone who was an officer in WW11, I can't recall the book - I think it is well known. In it he describes an incident in France where after heavy fighting he is with a trusted NCO who has been through a lot of action and they come across a Frenchman robbing the corpses of British soldiers. The NCO empties his gun into the robber. I asked myself in all honesty what I would have done as the officer in those circumstances and the answer is nothing.
I think murder is worse than robbing corpses. i personally strive to do neither.
That isn't a comment on the moral dilemma of the officer.
Ideally he should have arrested the the murderer, if circumstances allowed it to be done relatively safely. There's no moral dilemma at all, only a practical one.
Just as under the relevant national law, anyone who knew where Anne Frank was, 1942-44, was under a duty to report the fact to the authorities.
There's no moral dilemma at all, only a practical one.
Uh, no. I'm not saying murder is wrong because it's illegal, I'm saying it's just wrong. I didn't think that was controversial.
Well, it rather boringly, is. Assassinating Hitler would have been murder, at any time and in any country. You got a problem with it?
Barry Pepper in 'Saving Private Ryan': "Well, what I mean by that, sir, is... if you was to put me and this here sniper rifle anywhere up to and including one mile of Adolf Hitler with a clear line of sight, sir... pack your bags, fellas, war's over. Amen."
There would be have been nothing illegal, under English law, about assassinating Hitler, in WWII.
I was thinking mid 30s. Also the common law exclusion is for killing in the heart of war and exercise thereof which probably wouldn't apply to, say, putting arsenic in his tea
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assume were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
Theresa May’s solution for the Irish border was for the UK to stay in the customs union until a technical solution could be found.
That was destroyed, essentially by the Brexit hard gang, egged on by then king over the water, Boris Johnson.
Boris and the ERGers own the Irish problem, just as they do the decline of UK export performance.
(All of this was predicted by Remainers).
Of course if PM Starmer wins the next general election he will likely just reheat May's Deal, to go full back into the EEA plus free movement risks him losing the redwall and he obviously thinks Boris' deal is too hard Brexit.
So May might have the last laugh yet
No. Dynamic alignment to the SM, particularly on food and agriculture gets rid of most of the hassle on the Irish Sea border and for that matter the Dover one. Not even 10% of Leavers would be bothered by that. Not least because EU regulations are by and large very good.
So would equivalence.
The EU should indeed offer equivalence on food and ag.
Although it’s not a full excuse, it’s possible they have been put off by noises within the Tory party for a reduction in food standards to better attract a US trade deal.
That will take some time to unwind - as there is also much amplification of that alleged difference by activists seeking to use it as a lever to claim that changes are the end of world as we know it.
For example, last week there was a series of interviews with farmers about the impact of the New Zealand / Oz trade agreements on Lamb Farming, who are getting on and adapting rather than saying that the apocalypse has arrived.
A couple of months ago there was a similar series of interviews with fishing businesses who are now adapting successfully.
The current complaints are about HOW DARE THEY THINK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT IN FARMING (when we need to think about threats to food production volumes now that a regional war has suddenly happened).
It reminds me to an extent of the rhetoric run by the General Election campaign by Corbyn's Labour claiming that a US Trade Agreement would mean the NHS would be sold off. Lurid but total BS, as the Treaty said the opposite, and soon regressing to its proper place.
I doubt any apocalypse will happen overnight.
I would encourage any Tory apparatchiks reading to avoid importing US food standards into the UK, though.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
Apparently there is a long-running feud between the two. Usually jokes at these things are made against the movie-star class as a whole. There's a skill to that sort of thing. Ricky Gervais can do it, Chris Rock evidently cannot.
Smith was clearly upset with what he'd done and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
I'd agree, but Rock's 'joke' referred to Smith's wife's illness, an illness which is probably very depressing and distressing for a woman.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assumed were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
Of course there's been an increase in war rhetoric. There's a hot war going on, and one that people feel passionately about for a variety of reasons: it's a clear case of good versus evil, the plucky underdog is doing surprisingly well, and it is close to home.
In addition, the war could spread and affect us all. People are frightened and trying to understand it.
So yes, people are discussing the war. And it's perfectly correct for them to do so.
I also cannot see *any* logic in calling for a NFZ and declaring yourself a pacifist - since an NFZ would be a massive escalation in the conflict.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
I'd agree, but Rock's 'joke' referred to Smith's wife's illness, an illness which is probably very depressing and distressing for a woman.
Did it? I listened to it, but didn't know about the illness and didn't get the reference. What is it?
IMO it *still* doesn't excuse what Smith did. Especially as he got the perfect opportunity a while later to take Rock to task.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
I'd agree, but Rock's 'joke' referred to Smith's wife's illness, an illness which is probably very depressing and distressing for a woman.
Did it? I listened to it, but didn't know about the illness and didn't get the reference. What is it?
IMO it *still* doesn't excuse what Smith did. Especially as he got the perfect opportunity a while later to take Rock to task.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
Apparently there is a long-running feud between the two. Usually jokes at these things are made against the movie-star class as a whole. There's a skill to that sort of thing. Ricky Gervais can do it, Chris Rock evidently cannot.
Smith was clearly upset with what he'd done and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Why? If he does that because of a bad joke, he'd do it for anything. And remember, he's the 'talent'.
Being 'upset' isn't a reason to go on stage and hit someone, when you are not being threatened.
(it would not surprise me if this causes other stories to come out of the woodwork.)
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
Apparently there is a long-running feud between the two. Usually jokes at these things are made against the movie-star class as a whole. There's a skill to that sort of thing. Ricky Gervais can do it, Chris Rock evidently cannot.
Smith was clearly upset with what he'd done and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If I were a "movie star" (thank heavens I'm not) I would dread* going to the Oscars not look forward to it. I'd only grudgingly go out of a sense of industry duty.
I feel the same way about most awards dinners: facile, banal and painfully tedious but with rictus smiles being mandatory for hours throughout.
(*But, then again, maybe that explains why I'm not a movie star.)
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
I'd agree, but Rock's 'joke' referred to Smith's wife's illness, an illness which is probably very depressing and distressing for a woman.
Did it? I listened to it, but didn't know about the illness and didn't get the reference. What is it?
IMO it *still* doesn't excuse what Smith did. Especially as he got the perfect opportunity a while later to take Rock to task.
Alopecia, and Rock compared it to a GI 'buzzcut', as worn by Demi Moore in GI Jane.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
I'd agree, but Rock's 'joke' referred to Smith's wife's illness, an illness which is probably very depressing and distressing for a woman.
Did it? I listened to it, but didn't know about the illness and didn't get the reference. What is it?
IMO it *still* doesn't excuse what Smith did. Especially as he got the perfect opportunity a while later to take Rock to task.
She has alopecia.
Ah thanks, didn't know. When I watched it, I didn't get any impression Rock was talking about anything like that. It just seemed to be about that brilliantly fantastic film GI Joe, but I can now see a connection.
Still doesn't excuse Smith though: just makes Chris Rock into a prat. Something which should not surprise anyone...
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
Apparently there is a long-running feud between the two. Usually jokes at these things are made against the movie-star class as a whole. There's a skill to that sort of thing. Ricky Gervais can do it, Chris Rock evidently cannot.
Smith was clearly upset with what he'd done and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If I were a "movie star" (thank heavens I'm not) I would dread* going to the Oscars not look forward to it. I'd only grudgingly go out of a sense of industry duty.
I feel the same way about most awards dinners: facile, banal and painfully tedious but with rictus smiles being mandatory for hours throughout.
(*But, then again, maybe that explains why I'm not a movie star.)
Yes, my idea of hell. I've seen footage from old Oscars where it used to be quite a serious affair. The person presenting the award would come on stage and wax lyrical about the talent and then say "and the winner is..."
Nowadays it's very political and not very serious.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assume were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
Yes, well, like most things present battles are best understood by reference to historical battles. Also, your persona is slipping. Two weeks ago you were appalled by the cowardice of nato and the West for not taking the war to Putin.
I read a memoire by someone who was an officer in WW11, I can't recall the book - I think it is well known. In it he describes an incident in France where after heavy fighting he is with a trusted NCO who has been through a lot of action and they come across a Frenchman robbing the corpses of British soldiers. The NCO empties his gun into the robber. I asked myself in all honesty what I would have done as the officer in those circumstances and the answer is nothing.
I think murder is worse than robbing corpses. i personally strive to do neither.
That isn't a comment on the moral dilemma of the officer.
Ideally he should have arrested the the murderer, if circumstances allowed it to be done relatively safely. There's no moral dilemma at all, only a practical one.
Just as under the relevant national law, anyone who knew where Anne Frank was, 1942-44, was under a duty to report the fact to the authorities.
There's no moral dilemma at all, only a practical one.
Uh, no. I'm not saying murder is wrong because it's illegal, I'm saying it's just wrong. I didn't think that was controversial.
Well, it rather boringly, is. Assassinating Hitler would have been murder, at any time and in any country. You got a problem with it?
No, I don't. But I have a sounds basis for thinking so. you operate within the law when the law is available as a practical remedy. When it comes to a genocidal maniac who is the head of a legion fascist fuckheads, then murder is the only practical response. The only other realistic alternative is letting him live, and that's worse.
Contrast that with someone robbing corpses. A nasty business, very unpleasant. But is the world a better place for appointing yourself Judge Judy and executioner, and upon witnessing it dispensing the ultimate punishment? I think no, the world is better served not killing people for such actions. If your only choice is between a corpse robber going free or me becoming a murderer, I choose the corpse robber's freedom. I would kill, but it would need to be for something MUCH worse than seeing some stealing from a dead guy.
All very A Level Philosophy, well done, B-, the more interesting question is: would you, the officer, arrest the NCO who shot the corpse-robber? Given what the NCO had been through, I doubt I would. I’d probably have tutted, and moved on
I am quite certain that I would not have arrested the NCO, had I been the officer.
Because he had a gun and had demonstrated willingness to use it?
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assumed were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
I also cannot see *any* logic in calling for a NFZ and declaring yourself a pacifist - since an NFZ would be a massive escalation in the conflict.
Pragmatism, not logic, are necessary in a situation where an aggressor has violently assaulted someone or an entire people. The old cliche about standing back and watching whilst a soldier rapes your wife etc.
And it's the kind of pragmatism you need because it ultimately saves more lives. Had the bomb plot against Hitler succeeded in June 1944 it would have saved, what, 2 million other lives (many of them Jewish)?* So I am a pacifist in principle but have the pragmatic common sense to accept that sometimes you have to act.
I'm not sure that a No Fly Zone will instantly represent a "massive escalation" in the conflict and it does smack to me of NIMBYism. Because the people who are getting bombed into oblivion are not 'us', or not members of this or that club, we're not going to their aid. They are still our fellow human beings and they are calling for our help. Because we are cowering in fear at the consequences we won't do so. That's how bullies win. What Putin has done is an act of unspeakable evil.
And I'm not convinced that our present course is going to lead to deescalation. If, as seems likely, Putin's forces are grinding to a halt then that might make Putin even more dangerous. A cornered animal and all that.
I go back to the Cuban missile crisis. The language Kruschev understood was being stood up to. Perhaps if we took a stronger stance with Putin we would find a quicker route to the negotiating table and save more innocent lives in Ukraine.
It's a theory, that's all.
* By the way I'm pretty sure Leon is wrong when he says Churchill backed the plot. IIRC from reading about it, Churchill did not want to get involved when it was first mooted.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assume were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
Yes, well, like most things present battles are best understood by reference to historical battles. Also, your persona is slipping. Two weeks ago you were appalled by the cowardice of nato and the West for not taking the war to Putin.
There's no doubt that reading PB's military tacticians on the war has been particularly enlightening.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assume were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
Yes, well, like most things present battles are best understood by reference to historical battles. Also, your persona is slipping. Two weeks ago you were appalled by the cowardice of nato and the West for not taking the war to Putin.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assume were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
Two weeks ago you were appalled by the cowardice of nato and the West for not taking the war to Putin.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assume were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
Yes, well, like most things present battles are best understood by reference to historical battles. Also, your persona is slipping. Two weeks ago you were appalled by the cowardice of nato and the West for not taking the war to Putin.
There's no doubt that reading PB's military tacticians on the war has been particularly enlightening.
What's been particularly interesting for me is how the insight my ex-Royal Navy captain friend provided - that excellent people management was crucial for military success and integrated C&C of combined operations - has been vindicated.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assume were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
Yes, well, like most things present battles are best understood by reference to historical battles. Also, your persona is slipping. Two weeks ago you were appalled by the cowardice of nato and the West for not taking the war to Putin.
There's no doubt that reading PB's military tacticians on the war has been particularly enlightening.
What's been particularly interesting for me is how the insight my ex-Royal Navy captain friend provided - that excellent people management was crucial for military success and integrated C&C of combined operations - has been vindicated.
See C4's programme on the Falklands, last night.
Did anyone watch the one of Edward VIII, just before it? Recorded, chez Cole, to watch today.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assumed were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
I also cannot see *any* logic in calling for a NFZ and declaring yourself a pacifist - since an NFZ would be a massive escalation in the conflict.
Pragmatism, not logic, are necessary in a situation where an aggressor has violently assaulted someone or an entire people. The old cliche about standing back and watching whilst a soldier rapes your wife etc.
And it's the kind of pragmatism you need because it ultimately saves more lives. Had the bomb plot against Hitler succeeded in June 1944 it would have saved, what, 2 million other lives (many of them Jewish)?* So I am a pacifist in principle but have the pragmatic common sense to accept that sometimes you have to act.
I'm not sure that a No Fly Zone will instantly represent a "massive escalation" in the conflict and it does smack to me of NIMBYism. Because the people who are getting bombed into oblivion are not 'us', or not members of this or that club, we're not going to their aid. They are still our fellow human beings and they are calling for our help. Because we are cowering in fear at the consequences we won't do so. That's how bullies win. What Putin has done is an act of unspeakable evil.
And I'm not convinced that our present course is going to lead to deescalation. If, as seems likely, Putin's forces are grinding to a halt then that might make Putin even more dangerous. A cornered animal and all that.
I go back to the Cuban missile crisis. The language Kruschev understood was being stood up to. Perhaps if we took a stronger stance with Putin we would find a quicker route to the negotiating table and save more innocent lives in Ukraine.
It's a theory, that's all.
* By the way I'm pretty sure Leon is wrong when he says Churchill backed the plot. IIRC from reading about it, Churchill did not want to get involved when it was first mooted.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assumed were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
I also cannot see *any* logic in calling for a NFZ and declaring yourself a pacifist - since an NFZ would be a massive escalation in the conflict.
Pragmatism, not logic, are necessary in a situation where an aggressor has violently assaulted someone or an entire people. The old cliche about standing back and watching whilst a soldier rapes your wife etc.
And it's the kind of pragmatism you need because it ultimately saves more lives. Had the bomb plot against Hitler succeeded in June 1944 it would have saved, what, 2 million other lives (many of them Jewish)?* So I am a pacifist in principle but have the pragmatic common sense to accept that sometimes you have to act.
I'm not sure that a No Fly Zone will instantly represent a "massive escalation" in the conflict and it does smack to me of NIMBYism. Because the people who are getting bombed into oblivion are not 'us', or not members of this or that club, we're not going to their aid. They are still our fellow human beings and they are calling for our help. Because we are cowering in fear at the consequences we won't do so. That's how bullies win. What Putin has done is an act of unspeakable evil.
And I'm not convinced that our present course is going to lead to deescalation. If, as seems likely, Putin's forces are grinding to a halt then that might make Putin even more dangerous. A cornered animal and all that.
I go back to the Cuban missile crisis. The language Kruschev understood was being stood up to. Perhaps if we took a stronger stance with Putin we would find a quicker route to the negotiating table and save more innocent lives in Ukraine.
It's a theory, that's all.
* By the way I'm pretty sure Leon is wrong when he says Churchill backed the plot. IIRC from reading about it, Churchill did not want to get involved when it was first mooted.
A NFZ would require the RAF hitting targets inside Russian territory. Explain how that isn't an escalation. Thanks.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
Rock made a "joke" about Smith's wife. It's one thing to be made fun of, it's quite another for someone you care about to be made fun of, especially about something that is not in her control.
This is the Oscars. The presenters make bad jokes about things and people. It's what you expect. If you don't want it, don't go.
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
I'd agree, but Rock's 'joke' referred to Smith's wife's illness, an illness which is probably very depressing and distressing for a woman.
Did it? I listened to it, but didn't know about the illness and didn't get the reference. What is it?
IMO it *still* doesn't excuse what Smith did. Especially as he got the perfect opportunity a while later to take Rock to task.
I think Rock got he deserved in the old school way. Maybe the Oscars can get back to being about film and not the presenters turning it into a poor comedy stand up
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
What a deeply unpleasant person you are.
What is it about this site? It seems to attract more than it’s fair share of violent right wing thugs.
Wouldn't you come out swinging if somebody insulted your wife in front of millions and she Was in the audience being humiliated? It's not right wing its being human
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
LOL. No.
I don't need to big myself up by pretending I'd deck anyone who annoys me.
Tell me, do you manage people? If so, do you hit or bully them if they're an ass?
I wouldn't have hit Rock but if he'd made a public joke about my wife - who had a medical condition - I might have left my seat and walked out; I'd have been very upset and would certainly have let him know what I thought about it later.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
There's a good analogy in there somewhere.
What if you were out with your wife and a tasty geezer insulted her. Quite handy yourself? Then what about 10 tasty geezers.
Will Smith is four inches taller than Chris Rock. Plus he must have learned something when filming Ali.
In a violent world bullies get their own way and those who condone violence and shout the odds are usually on the stronger/bigger side. They are all at sea when someone bigger or stronger starts doing the same thing.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
What a deeply unpleasant person you are.
What is it about this site? It seems to attract more than it’s fair share of violent right wing thugs.
Wouldn't you come out swinging if somebody insulted your wife in front of millions and she Was in the audience being humiliated? It's not right wing its being human
Speaking for myself, no, I wouldn't. Particularly if I'm a big star with a very loud voice such as Will Smith - they have many other, better, routes to resolving disputes. And again I mention the forum they were in.
Violence is bad. It's sad that this has to be explained to so many people on here, as it seems kind-of obvious. But it seems that some people see violence as the perfect response to anything, even verbal abuse. I know 'toxic masculinity' will trigger some people, but it seems a good example of it.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
What a deeply unpleasant person you are.
What is it about this site? It seems to attract more than it’s fair share of violent right wing thugs.
Wouldn't you come out swinging if somebody insulted your wife in front of millions and she Was in the audience being humiliated? It's not right wing its being human
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
LOL. No.
I don't need to big myself up by pretending I'd deck anyone who annoys me.
Tell me, do you manage people? If so, do you hit or bully them if they're an ass?
I wouldn't have hit Rock but if he'd made a public joke about my wife - who had a medical condition - I might have left my seat and walked out; I'd have been very upset and would certainly have let him know what I thought about it later.
That was my thought, too. Would have made the best actor presentation interesting.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
Using terms like: "prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals" is not a good way to persuade people you are not a troll.
And people are perfectly free to 'broaden perspectives'. And others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Incidentally, if someone is using a VPN, and it exits to a fixed IP that is actually the IP of a compromised PC, then that person has a very bad security problem.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Yep but that's different from suggesting that they are a Russian troll or "paid by Putin". That's the part I object to. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my perspectives, or anyone else's.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assumed were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
I also cannot see *any* logic in calling for a NFZ and declaring yourself a pacifist - since an NFZ would be a massive escalation in the conflict.
Pragmatism, not logic, are necessary in a situation where an aggressor has violently assaulted someone or an entire people. The old cliche about standing back and watching whilst a soldier rapes your wife etc.
And it's the kind of pragmatism you need because it ultimately saves more lives. Had the bomb plot against Hitler succeeded in June 1944 it would have saved, what, 2 million other lives (many of them Jewish)?* So I am a pacifist in principle but have the pragmatic common sense to accept that sometimes you have to act.
I'm not sure that a No Fly Zone will instantly represent a "massive escalation" in the conflict and it does smack to me of NIMBYism. Because the people who are getting bombed into oblivion are not 'us', or not members of this or that club, we're not going to their aid. They are still our fellow human beings and they are calling for our help. Because we are cowering in fear at the consequences we won't do so. That's how bullies win. What Putin has done is an act of unspeakable evil.
And I'm not convinced that our present course is going to lead to deescalation. If, as seems likely, Putin's forces are grinding to a halt then that might make Putin even more dangerous. A cornered animal and all that.
I go back to the Cuban missile crisis. The language Kruschev understood was being stood up to. Perhaps if we took a stronger stance with Putin we would find a quicker route to the negotiating table and save more innocent lives in Ukraine.
It's a theory, that's all.
* By the way I'm pretty sure Leon is wrong when he says Churchill backed the plot. IIRC from reading about it, Churchill did not want to get involved when it was first mooted.
So, now we are allowed to refer to ww2?
Confusing
Probably 2 Heatheners arguing with each other? Either that or Heathener is a very confused person.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
LOL. No.
I don't need to big myself up by pretending I'd deck anyone who annoys me.
Tell me, do you manage people? If so, do you hit or bully them if they're an ass?
I wouldn't have hit Rock but if he'd made a public joke about my wife - who had a medical condition - I might have left my seat and walked out; I'd have been very upset and would certainly have let him know what I thought about it later.
Yes, that would have been a much better route to handle it. Or go on stage and just tell Chris Rock he is out of order.
The sad thing is, there will be kids who look up to Smith who will now think this is okay.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
Using terms like: "prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals" is not a good way to persuade people you are not a troll.
And people are perfectly free to 'broaden perspectives'. And others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Incidentally, if someone is using a VPN, and it exits to a fixed IP that is actually the IP of a compromised PC, then that person has a very bad security problem.
What is a compromised PC and how big is the problem.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
What a deeply unpleasant person you are.
What is it about this site? It seems to attract more than it’s fair share of violent right wing thugs.
Wouldn't you come out swinging if somebody insulted your wife in front of millions and she Was in the audience being humiliated? It's not right wing its being human
No - it's a form of sexism. My wife - believe me - can stick up for herself. It's all about Smith's ego.
Top work from the Fresh Prince, smacking the boredom out of the annual smugfest. You punch down with your jokes often enough and you gotta expect one’s going to come back and hit you on the chin.
Can we please call a halt to this kind of thing? Just because someone posts an alternative perspective to the prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals does not make them a Russian troll. This site would be much the poorer (and has been since the invasion) by the tiresome and childish 'outing' of people who may be broadening perspectives.
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
Using terms like: "prevailing orthodoxy of the salivating armchair generals" is not a good way to persuade people you are not a troll.
And people are perfectly free to 'broaden perspectives'. And others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
Incidentally, if someone is using a VPN, and it exits to a fixed IP that is actually the IP of a compromised PC, then that person has a very bad security problem.
What if they are doing deliberately to protect someone very important at Westminster?
That doesn't mean you shouldn't defend yourself if you are physically attacked: just that a violent response to verbal could cause more problems than it 'solves'.
Baftas 2022 host Rebel Wilson cracked a joke about Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith’s much-publicised open relationship, after he won the award for Leading Actor on Sunday night (13 March).
Smith won the prize for his performance in King Richard as Richard Williams, the father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams.
He was absent from the ceremony, so the film’s director Reinaldo Marcus Green accepted the award on his behalf.
Joking about Smith’s win, Wilson said she thought his “best performance in the past year was being OK with all his wife’s boyfriends”.
When the crowd groaned, she said: “Come on, he never showed up!”
Baftas 2022 host Rebel Wilson cracked a joke about Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith’s much-publicised open relationship, after he won the award for Leading Actor on Sunday night (13 March).
Smith won the prize for his performance in King Richard as Richard Williams, the father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams.
He was absent from the ceremony, so the film’s director Reinaldo Marcus Green accepted the award on his behalf.
Joking about Smith’s win, Wilson said she thought his “best performance in the past year was being OK with all his wife’s boyfriends”.
When the crowd groaned, she said: “Come on, he never showed up!”
Baftas 2022 host Rebel Wilson cracked a joke about Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith’s much-publicised open relationship, after he won the award for Leading Actor on Sunday night (13 March).
Smith won the prize for his performance in King Richard as Richard Williams, the father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams.
He was absent from the ceremony, so the film’s director Reinaldo Marcus Green accepted the award on his behalf.
Joking about Smith’s win, Wilson said she thought his “best performance in the past year was being OK with all his wife’s boyfriends”.
When the crowd groaned, she said: “Come on, he never showed up!”
Baftas 2022 host Rebel Wilson cracked a joke about Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith’s much-publicised open relationship, after he won the award for Leading Actor on Sunday night (13 March).
Smith won the prize for his performance in King Richard as Richard Williams, the father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams.
He was absent from the ceremony, so the film’s director Reinaldo Marcus Green accepted the award on his behalf.
Joking about Smith’s win, Wilson said she thought his “best performance in the past year was being OK with all his wife’s boyfriends”.
When the crowd groaned, she said: “Come on, he never showed up!”
That doesn't mean you shouldn't defend yourself if you are physically attacked: just that a violent response to verbal could cause more problems than it 'solves'.
i am not sure you should get so moral when you advocate strongly weapons to Ukraine which dont just have a small chance of killing people but a whopping great one. TBH I often argue against the public grain on many things but feel I am taking the easy option here in arguing that he was justified in decking him as it woudl be overwhelmingly in the Court of Public opinion that it was the right thing to do . So I admire you taking the less easy side of this
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
What a deeply unpleasant person you are.
What is it about this site? It seems to attract more than it’s fair share of violent right wing thugs.
Wouldn't you come out swinging if somebody insulted your wife in front of millions and she Was in the audience being humiliated? It's not right wing its being human
No - it's a form of sexism. My wife - believe me - can stick up for herself. It's all about Smith's ego.
Rock was making a joke. Sticks and stones etc.
arr sexism is now sticking up for your wife is it?
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
What a deeply unpleasant person you are.
What is it about this site? It seems to attract more than it’s fair share of violent right wing thugs.
Wouldn't you come out swinging if somebody insulted your wife in front of millions and she Was in the audience being humiliated? It's not right wing its being human
No - it's a form of sexism. My wife - believe me - can stick up for herself. It's all about Smith's ego.
Rock was making a joke. Sticks and stones etc.
arr sexism is now sticking up for your wife is it?
Pls answer the question. Tyson Fury is on stage making jokes about your wife to a large audience. What's your next move.
He may be, but in this case Will Smith seems utterly to be in the wrong. And a bit of a violent thug as well.
A life tip, don't insult a man's wife while said man is in the fucking audience.
A life tip: don't go around hitting people just because they're an ass.
Nah, that's not a good tip. Maybe if you're one of life's doormats.
What a deeply unpleasant person you are.
What is it about this site? It seems to attract more than it’s fair share of violent right wing thugs.
Wouldn't you come out swinging if somebody insulted your wife in front of millions and she Was in the audience being humiliated? It's not right wing its being human
No - it's a form of sexism. My wife - believe me - can stick up for herself. It's all about Smith's ego.
Rock was making a joke. Sticks and stones etc.
arr sexism is now sticking up for your wife is it?
Sexism or fragile toxic masculinity. It is one or the other.
Comments
Incidentally, our local monopoly newspaper, the Seattle Times, regularly (including today) has articles and columns about the Japanese internment in this area, but has never mentioned the Manila massacre during the decades that I have been reading it. NHK World, which I occasionally watch, has a similar policy.
The only area of France that had conscription was Alsace and Lorraine which the Germans claimed was Germany anyway. A lot of the troops in the 2nd SS Panzer Division which committed the atrocities at Thule and Oradour sur Glane in June 1944 were Alsatian French/Germans.
But here goes. In all honesty. I have only been in Ireland twice in my life, and that was with Horse-racing in mind. And I am left from the experience genuinely believing the Irish are a friendly and hospitable people to everyone from around the world - unless you speak with a British accent. Ten years ago when I first went over, I actually had this naive idea green politics could grow in Ireland - before I now appreciate Irish politics is shaped and dominated by Nationalism.
Interestingly, Green is a major player in German politics, but can’t make a mark in France, can we put this down to the same as in Ireland, politics already more strongly shaped by nationalism?
Please correct me where wrong, the last hundred years of Irish politics shaped by pretty much the one thing - Collins deal with the British. They were all basically on the same side, Irish land and freedom, but those who accepted deal followed Collins into government quickly became FG, those who didn’t then later became known as FF when in government, fought a bloody civil war with Collins British backed government (backed by hated Black and Tan security force) and then there was a truce, and the IRA people fought on in another split (maybe partly class based) especially when FF kicked FG out of government and governed well and took strangle hold on something they fought bloody civil war arguing was wrong. 🤦♀️
The actual political ideology of the IRA makes no sense to me in how it flip flops. 1926 to 36 very socialist or even communist, but in mid thirties turned rather fascist and cuddled up to euro,and world Fascism. Peaky blinders is touching on this, but I think jumped the gun a bit early in their timings.
The Pacific War trilogy, by contrast, is the best general history series I have ever read.
Hospitals will be able to predict daily A&E admissions weeks in advance using artificial intelligence software that analyses data including 111 calls and the weather. It is being introduced in 100 NHS hospital trusts today after trials showed it had an “impressive” ability to forecast daily admissions, broken down by age, up to three weeks in advance."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ai-hospital-forecasting-reduce-nhs-waiting-lists-nm9t568wg
The Nebraska congressman Jeff Fortenberry has resigned from office after a California jury convicted him of lying to federal authorities about an illegal campaign donation from a foreign national.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/27/us-congressman-resigns-after-being-convicted-of-lying-to-fbi
It's all too easy to insist that one have clean hands - until one actually fights.
Dune/Coda awardsOscars show.Will Smith punches Chris Rock on stage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60897004
There hasn’t been an argument about who is the Russian president for a good couple of decades.
How much that might change as a result of this disastrous invasion is yet to be seen.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/kharkiv-ukraine-suffers-putin-attack-russian-invasion-1326292/
Unlike Mariupol, whose suffering is considerably greater, it is neither completely cut off, nor are there regular incursions by Russian troops, so @Luckyguy1983 can read in some detail what’s happening there.
https://twitter.com/natynettle/status/1508130753812606980
Credit to Apple, also. Not just for backing the film, but for the fantastic deaf accessibility they build into their products.
Apple have genuinely made my quality of life a whole lot better since getting both an iPhone, and an iPhone compatible hearing aid.
Well done apple.
Meanwhile, if you want a heart-warming read this morning about Ukrainian resistance to the invasion there's a brilliant piece in The Guardian about the specialist IT drone operators. In a horrible, deadly, war this will put a smile on your face.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/28/the-drone-operators-who-halted-the-russian-armoured-vehicles-heading-for-kyiv
However, I can't actually see what's wrong with calling for Putin's removal? Surely that's exactly what we want and should be working for? Genuine question.
Is the issue about inflaming Putin's wrath? If so, why the hell are we letting this ogre bully us all the time? Does no one in the west apart from Zelensky have the courage to stand up to Putin? If we don't then he will go on and on and on bullying.
p.s. and, no, I'm not sitting in a Moscow department and no I'm not a Russian d̶o̶l̶l̶ troll.
The assassination team followed Nemtsov on multiple trips up until one week before his murder, when they switched targets to Nemtsov's close ally Vladimir Kara-Murza. Data used in this investigation was verified by the BBC.
https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1508311603032338437
And rcs, you stated baldly and without negotiation that there will not be a no fly zone. We still don't know that. War does strange things and I don't know how this is going to pan out, nor do you. Nor does anyone on here.
And people are perfectly free to 'broaden perspectives'. And others are perfectly free to say that they're stupidly excusing evil.
F1: just writing up the ramble now. I wonder if they're going to fiddle with DRS lines at other circuits now.
Equivalence is saying “we recognise you are a mature democracy with suitably high standards so do what you want and we reserve the right to change our minds if you do something silly”
Dynamic alignment is saying “you will do what we tell you to do”
See the difference?
I do agree with Heathener about the story about the drone operators in the Guardian. Positive, although whether it's future of warfare I doubt. The drones seem quite easy to block, although doing so also blocks ones own drones. At the moment, anyway.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/03/saudi-arabia-post-race-analysis-2022.html
There is a problem with the flow of goods.
This solves the problem for the vast bulk of the goods.
It does not - and does not try to - solve the problem for the vast majority of *traders*
Your issue is not the problem that needs fixing - in fact the EU complained about the number of firms that the UK planned to include in the trusted trader scheme
It is about escalation. A response would be to quietly fume and then use your own high-profile voice to respond. Or be the bigger man and do not respond. Or respond in private: "I really didn't appreciate that."
What you do not is go on stage and hit someone. That's an escalation.
It looks really bad for Will Smith. If he can get triggered that easily, how often is he triggered in his private life? His instinct is evidently towards violence.
With regard to the salivating armchair generals, there has been a huge increase in the war rhetoric on here. Whilst appalled by the invasion, a certain coterie of mostly men seem to be pouring over every piece of military action and pouncing upon it, with lots of references to past military actions including WW2. As I mentioned the other day, it's like living inside that game of Diplomacy. Or, rather, it's like living inside one of those black and white war films that I assume were their staple Sunday afternoon viewings when they grew up in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Despite my belief that we should back Zelensky and the people of Ukraine with an international No Fly Zone, I'm a pacifist. All the war talk makes for pretty grim reading, that's all.
Question: if the west successfully assassinated Putin, would the world be more or less stable?
Smith was clearly upset with what he'd done and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
In addition, the war could spread and affect us all. People are frightened and trying to understand it.
So yes, people are discussing the war. And it's perfectly correct for them to do so.
I also cannot see *any* logic in calling for a NFZ and declaring yourself a pacifist - since an NFZ would be a massive escalation in the conflict.
IMO it *still* doesn't excuse what Smith did. Especially as he got the perfect opportunity a while later to take Rock to task.
Being 'upset' isn't a reason to go on stage and hit someone, when you are not being threatened.
(it would not surprise me if this causes other stories to come out of the woodwork.)
I feel the same way about most awards dinners: facile, banal and painfully tedious but with rictus smiles being mandatory for hours throughout.
(*But, then again, maybe that explains why I'm not a movie star.)
Still doesn't excuse Smith though: just makes Chris Rock into a prat. Something which should not surprise anyone...
Nowadays it's very political and not very serious.
It’ll never catch on over here!
And it's the kind of pragmatism you need because it ultimately saves more lives. Had the bomb plot against Hitler succeeded in June 1944 it would have saved, what, 2 million other lives (many of them Jewish)?* So I am a pacifist in principle but have the pragmatic common sense to accept that sometimes you have to act.
I'm not sure that a No Fly Zone will instantly represent a "massive escalation" in the conflict and it does smack to me of NIMBYism. Because the people who are getting bombed into oblivion are not 'us', or not members of this or that club, we're not going to their aid. They are still our fellow human beings and they are calling for our help. Because we are cowering in fear at the consequences we won't do so. That's how bullies win. What Putin has done is an act of unspeakable evil.
And I'm not convinced that our present course is going to lead to deescalation. If, as seems likely, Putin's forces are grinding to a halt then that might make Putin even more dangerous. A cornered animal and all that.
I go back to the Cuban missile crisis. The language Kruschev understood was being stood up to. Perhaps if we took a stronger stance with Putin we would find a quicker route to the negotiating table and save more innocent lives in Ukraine.
It's a theory, that's all.
* By the way I'm pretty sure Leon is wrong when he says Churchill backed the plot. IIRC from reading about it, Churchill did not want to get involved when it was first mooted.
I'd had a personal bet with myself and thought they'd last 3 weeks tops before pulling out the conspiracy theories.
They managed to just about hold it together on the maternity hospital bombing despite veeringly dangerously close.
Well done for going over a month.
Alternative perspectives are okay. This sort of vile Ad Hominem is not. In my opinion.
Clean it up folks.
Did anyone watch the one of Edward VIII, just before it? Recorded, chez Cole, to watch today.
Confusing
What is it about this site? It seems to attract more than its fair share of violent right wing thugs.
I don't need to big myself up by pretending I'd deck anyone who annoys me.
Tell me, do you manage people? If so, do you hit or bully them if they're an ass?
What if you were out with your wife and a tasty geezer insulted her. Quite handy yourself? Then what about 10 tasty geezers.
Will Smith is four inches taller than Chris Rock. Plus he must have learned something when filming Ali.
In a violent world bullies get their own way and those who condone violence and shout the odds are usually on the stronger/bigger side. They are all at sea when someone bigger or stronger starts doing the same thing.
Violence is bad. It's sad that this has to be explained to so many people on here, as it seems kind-of obvious. But it seems that some people see violence as the perfect response to anything, even verbal abuse. I know 'toxic masculinity' will trigger some people, but it seems a good example of it.
Note he did apologise for his behaviour.
The sad thing is, there will be kids who look up to Smith who will now think this is okay.
Rock was making a joke. Sticks and stones etc.
🤷♂️
And BTW, a single punch can easily have tragic consequences:
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/man-killed-single-punch-video-b2017742.html
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2022-01-24/man-arrested-after-death-of-man-from-single-punch-in-social-club
etc, etc.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't defend yourself if you are physically attacked: just that a violent response to verbal could cause more problems than it 'solves'.
Baftas 2022 host Rebel Wilson cracked a joke about Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith’s much-publicised open relationship, after he won the award for Leading Actor on Sunday night (13 March).
Smith won the prize for his performance in King Richard as Richard Williams, the father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams.
He was absent from the ceremony, so the film’s director Reinaldo Marcus Green accepted the award on his behalf.
Joking about Smith’s win, Wilson said she thought his “best performance in the past year was being OK with all his wife’s boyfriends”.
When the crowd groaned, she said: “Come on, he never showed up!”
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/baftas-2022-will-smith-rebel-wilson-b2034953.html?amp