There is Labour support for increased arms supplies.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1510545951160741891 I’m not going to post photos of the Russian atrocities in Bucha and elsewhere in Ukraine but they are surely reason enough for 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 🇪🇺 and NATO to provide tanks and other offensive weaponry to 🇺🇦 ? We cannot stand by and pretend we haven’t seen the genocidal war crimes.
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
We should give them the tools to push the Russians out of their country and its also time to to turn the gas imports off and fuck the consequences. The war crimes being committed by the Russian regime are horrific and yet countries allied to Ukraine are spending billions of dollars per week propping up the Russians.
Absolutely.
A consensus has been built in the US / Europe to provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry like NLAWs. Let's build a new consensus in favour or providing offensive weaponry. We can start with the US/UK/Poland/Baltic's and progress from there.
And if there is anytime to turn off the gas, the start of Spring is the time to do it.
I have been an advocate of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of our strategy to reduce CO2 emissions, including for power generation and 'blue' hydrogen to decarbonise the gas grid.
The war has made me rethink. The above approach would actually increase our natural gas consumption, due to the energy inefficiencies associated with CCS. A decarbonisation strategy that is more aligned with domestic self sufficiency in energy supply is now, in my opinion, the way we should be heading. It may well cost more, and be more disruptive (e.g., replacing everyone's gas boiler with a shitty air source heat pump), but priorities have shifted.
So, lots of renewables, electrolytic 'green' hydrogen, energy storage, electrification.
There is still a role for CCS, decarbonising highly emitting industries and on Energy from Waste plants, making the latter net-negative, but a much diminished role from what I have previously called for.
If the government is to U-turn in this area, then they've got around a year to do so before final investment decisions are made. Let's see what happens...
Extracting more of our own gas also fits the bill.
I agree that for the hydrocarbons we do consume, we should endeavour to maximise the domestic supply so long as the environmental consequences are not more damaging than the alternatives. And that should include coal.
Saying 'no new developments' is bonkers, as long as we have ongoing demand. It is worse than virtue signalling, it is economically damaging and threatens energy security until we are weaned off fossil fuels.
Removing coal from our energy mix was a huge environmental gain, just from air quality improvements. We should, of course, be removing all of the barriers to domestic oil and gas extraction. The idea that by eliminating domestic industries we would magically reduce demand was always ridiculous. We should never have been in this position of having huge oil and gas reserves in the UK but also being reliant on imports. Labour and the Tories have both put us in this position and it's time for grown up government to tell the green lobby to get fucked.
Picking up on your last point, from my perspective the problem is with some elements of the green movement training their guns on the wrong target.
Their focus should be on the demand side of the balance sheet. Eliminate consumption of hydrocarbons and there would then be no incentive to invest in new production. Instead, they advocate a policy that just makes us more reliant on energy imports from an array of undemocratic countries, and achieves no reduction in CO2 emissions.
Look at the Cambo oilfield and the proposed coking coal mine in Cumbria. Their development will not increase consumption, it will just make us more self sufficient. More jobs, more tax revenues, improved balance of payments, reduced supply chain risk.
In addition to the Cambo Oilfield and the Cumbria Coal Mine, I would add the the Lancashire shall gas fields.
Using Coal, oil and gas imported form Russia instead of Produced in the UK has never and would never reduces carbon output, (if anything when you add the Carbon emitted in transportation, it might be slightly less carbon by getting it out the ground here)
If we what to reduces the CO2 emitted in the UK we could/should just introduce a tax on CO2 emitted, start it small, very small, but with a large rise, announces the rates and timescale of that rise, at the start, even if mostly it does not kick in for many years. and youse some/most of the money razed to boost peoples income (benefits) and cut tax for Companies and individuals.
This would provide all the right incentives to develop and use CO2-reducing technology and allocate large amounts of capital to reducing CO2 emotions, while keeping living standards high and a good biasness environment.
Hundreds? Aren't these things supposed to be the size of a football stadium or something?
It's academic anyway. If Nimbies regularly succeed in blocking fifty Barratt boxes here or a windmill there then the chances of modular reactors ever being built are precisely zero. A nuclear power plant isn't generally considered to be beneficial to local house prices.
Small reactors. The sort of thing that fits in a smallish attack submarine. I'm very much in favour, from the little we know atm, and especially if they don't use highly-enriched uranium.
I don't really see how that helps with the politics. All the people who were opposed to having a large reactor near their houses will be equally opposed to having a small reactor, and there won't be any compensating local jobs either.
You call it an SMR and people think that this is referring to a Steam Methane Reformer, making blue hydrogen, and welcome the investment.
The only way I can think of to get it past the British voters it is to call it a nuclear submarine. Start with actual nuclear submarines sailing up rivers in times of crisis to provide power to the long-suffering electricity user. Then start making more reactors in the shape of nuclear submarines and transport them to their destinations on khaki-coloured lorries. Start out as an emergency thing that doesn't need planning permission as it's ostensibly temporary, then cover them in poppies and nobody will be able to remove them without dishonouring the poppies.
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
I've read some bonkers shit over the course of World War Z but this is a new perigee.
The British "Tranche 1" Typhoons are at Software Block 5. A tranche is a commercial structure; it's the block which defines capability. The RAF forked the software at B5 (Change Request 193) to get austere A2G capability ahead of the other partner nations which didn't care about it. This was to enable the beautiful dream of a Typhoon to Afghanistan deployment that never happened. Instead we got the Herrick Tornado detachment which cost a million quid a week for seven years.
So we had 53 aircraft that have no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch. The RAF lack the expertise, will and money to support the B5 software so the aircraft are obsolete which is why they are in the "reduce to produce" process. ie scrapped for parts.
These aircraft would be of significant net negative value to the Polish Air Force as they are colossally expensive to operate and can employ none of their existing weapons. They are also functionally inferior to the F-16s they already have and the F-35As they have on order.
Thanks for the info.
"no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch"
As someone who worked at the hardware/software level, what are the constraining factors to moving back onto the software branch? Is the hardware actually very different, and if so, it is it modularised?
I don't know exactly but it definitely needs new hardware and (I think) a structural change in a forward fuselage cross member to accommodate it. Then you've got to recertify the whole thing for flight, weapons release, etc. The Prime Minister will be one of Johnson's as yet unborn future bastards by the time all that happened.
That doesn't sound massive. I'll bet you any money: if it decides it has to be done (tm), it will be done in a matter of weeks. If that.
(And yes, IANAE, IMBBAA, etc, etc)
Nah, if they're moving from an ASIC to a generalised CPU in a combat setting the recertification process will be huge. The ASIC timings will have been built into the software specifications. The room for error in emulating the ASIC instructions and timings will be nil, which will require extensive testing.
There are a lot of assumptions in that. It'd be great to know exactly what the problem are - and we probably never will for (secrecy) reasons.
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
I've read some bonkers shit over the course of World War Z but this is a new perigee.
The British "Tranche 1" Typhoons are at Software Block 5. A tranche is a commercial structure; it's the block which defines capability. The RAF forked the software at B5 (Change Request 193) to get austere A2G capability ahead of the other partner nations which didn't care about it. This was to enable the beautiful dream of a Typhoon to Afghanistan deployment that never happened. Instead we got the Herrick Tornado detachment which cost a million quid a week for seven years.
So we had 53 aircraft that have no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch. The RAF lack the expertise, will and money to support the B5 software so the aircraft are obsolete which is why they are in the "reduce to produce" process. ie scrapped for parts.
These aircraft would be of significant net negative value to the Polish Air Force as they are colossally expensive to operate and can employ none of their existing weapons. They are also functionally inferior to the F-16s they already have and the F-35As they have on order.
Thanks for the info.
"no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch"
As someone who worked at the hardware/software level, what are the constraining factors to moving back onto the software branch? Is the hardware actually very different, and if so, it is it modularised?
I don't know exactly but it definitely needs new hardware and (I think) a structural change in a forward fuselage cross member to accommodate it. Then you've got to recertify the whole thing for flight, weapons release, etc. The Prime Minister will be one of Johnson's as yet unborn future bastards by the time all that happened.
That doesn't sound massive. I'll bet you any money: if it decides it has to be done (tm), it will be done in a matter of weeks. If that.
(And yes, IANAE, IMBBAA, etc, etc)
Nah, if they're moving from an ASIC to a generalised CPU in a combat setting the recertification process will be huge. The ASIC timings will have been built into the software specifications. The room for error in emulating the ASIC instructions and timings will be nil, which will require extensive testing.
There are a lot of assumptions in that. It'd be great to know exactly what the problem are - and we probably never will for (secrecy) reasons.
For sure, I've got a fair bit of experience building software emulators and when my PS2 emulator on the PS3 had issues the game just had a few errors, if the CPU emulation of a flight/combat related ASIC goes wrong it could be a huge problem for the pilot.
No, but other societies and times have done so. It is clearly not so in contemporary Britain. I use it as an example of a society changing, and being more accepting of social deviance.
OK, thanks for clarifying. So mental illness by this definition is essentially anything that would not be considered "the norm" by wider society?
I read it as you did, and thought Foxy sounded – well – erm, a bit crackers. Mental illness is surely what it says it is: a malfunctioning of normal brain function. The views of any particular society would – it seems to me – be irrelevant to this.
Just because some societies (bafflingly, wrongly) consider homosexuality and atheism wrong, doesn't make homosexuality and atheism an illness of any kind.
You could better argue that the societies themselves were sick for preaching against such freedom of thought and sexuality.
I think that's where I was going with my thought process too.
If atheism isn't a mental illness today, why would it be a mental illness in ye olde less enlightened times, unless any thought that differed from the accepted societal norm was deemed to be an illness?
A contrary view, yes, and one not accepted by society as a whole, sure, but a "mental illness"? I'm not sure that's a definition I'd apply.
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
I've read some bonkers shit over the course of World War Z but this is a new perigee.
The British "Tranche 1" Typhoons are at Software Block 5. A tranche is a commercial structure; it's the block which defines capability. The RAF forked the software at B5 (Change Request 193) to get austere A2G capability ahead of the other partner nations which didn't care about it. This was to enable the beautiful dream of a Typhoon to Afghanistan deployment that never happened. Instead we got the Herrick Tornado detachment which cost a million quid a week for seven years.
So we had 53 aircraft that have no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch. The RAF lack the expertise, will and money to support the B5 software so the aircraft are obsolete which is why they are in the "reduce to produce" process. ie scrapped for parts.
These aircraft would be of significant net negative value to the Polish Air Force as they are colossally expensive to operate and can employ none of their existing weapons. They are also functionally inferior to the F-16s they already have and the F-35As they have on order.
Wouldn't they just run them for this conflict and then do what we're going to do (sell them for parts/scrap)? Essentially just a short term fix for giving away their MiGs.
Either way, thanks for the info, I feel as though we'd do well to hire you as a consultant DA, but then you'd be joining the capitalist system.
@Dura_Ace - at the beginning of the war - confidently and loftily informed us that smaller anti-tank weapons like the NLAW would be laughably useless against mighty Russian tanks. He kept repeating this until it was risibly untrue then never mentioned it again
Ever since I have taken his air of military confidence, and subsequent military wisdom, with a large pinch of fleur de sel
HYUFD doesn’t pretend like most of the people that bully him day after day. Just let it go and leave the guy alone.
HYUFD is anti-democratic. He would be happy to see me, and thousands of others like me, imprisoned for our political views if that was necessary for his side to stay in power.
I might disagree politically with a lot of other posters here, and sometimes the things they say might upset me, because of the degree to which I think their views will lead to suffering for others - but only HYUFD has left me feeling scared for my liberty.
I will stand up for democratic norms against someone like HYUFD, and that is not bullying. Nor is it bullying to insist on proper use of facts, where HYUFD has a way of denying basic aspects of reality.
Where have I said I would imprison people for their views? I am generally more tolerant of Corbynistas for example than most of the liberal and libertarian thought police on here when they are not trashing me
Exactly. HYUFD has a right to his opinions. I see no reason for anyone to feel threatened - if he was Prime Minister, there might be policies that would give cause for concern, but as things stand he's simply representing one of many viewpoints, and it's not illegal for him to hold them. Democracy includes not hassling people personally because they say things we don't agree with.
It's also verrrrry boring.
I'm surprised by you Nick. Yes HYUFD has a right to his views and a right to express them which he does fulsomely. We also have a right to oppose them which is what we are doing. I would have thought from your background you would be at the forefront of objecting to these types of views. As history tells us it is the failure to object to these types of views that enables them to take hold.
Nick has been called a Communist amongst other things on here. Occasionally worse.
I often disagree with him but he has a right to his views exactly as I do and everyone else does on here as long as they are legal.
Without the pile on from thought police like you
I think it's your Scotland views where you lose the plot. Otherwise, true blue Tory with a trad bent and polling every day for breakfast.
And one (imo) very positive thing about you I'd like to put on record having noticed - an absence of brutish, simple simon interventions on 'trans'.
Naah, gonna have to show you thee red card there. Who actualy are you talking about? Because nobody who makes that accusation ever makes it good. Nobody here is "anti trans," that's just a hypothetical hate category, like saboteurs in Stalin's Russia. There's a certain amount of brutish simplicity in my proposed NO DICK spaces, but that doesn't make the proposal wrong.
The fact that I think the UK anti-apartheid movement was a load of posturing virtue-signalling wankers does not, while I am at it, mean that I am secretly in favour of racial segregation.
During my time on here someone said you must be mentally ill to want to change your sex. That's transphobic. I'm not saying transphobia is rife, but it happens.
That is the official line: gender dysphoria is a medically diagnoseable, treatable ailment. It is even in DSM-5.
Until the 1970s so was homosexuality.
Which gives pause for thought but both need to be analysed on their own terms. My views have been strongly influenced by Helen Joyces' book "Trans" and I'm not aware of any convincing attempt to refute her main points.
It is fundamental to the Trans debate whether it is a pathological state (gender dysphoria) or whether a normal variation to be accommodated by self actualisation.
In my mind (I am not a psychiatrist) a pathological mental state is one causing psychological, emotional or social harm to an individual or others.
As such some mental illnesses are caused by society and can be depathologised by changes in society. Homosexuality is an example of this, but there are others, such as promiscuity or atheism, at least in the UK. In other countries things may be different.
So a key issue in the Trans debate is whether society can accommodate Trans people as they want to be, or whether other societal impacts from this are too important.
Apologies in advance if I am reading this incorrectly, totally missing the boat and/or failing to understand your points here.
You consider atheism a mental illness?
No, @Foxy ’s point is there are societies which have.
As far as the trans argument is concerned, I have a child who is trans, and find the suggestion that he is suffering a mental illness both absurd - he is better adjusted than most posters, here including me - and offensive.
Great to hear he is well adjusted - and it would be completely inappropriate to comment on a specific case, but in general, how would you address the argument that while children are growing and their sense of self evolving, you can tell the difference between trans “I want to be of a different gender” and the internalised homophobia of “I am a boy and I like boys, but only girls like boys therefore I must really be a girl”?
Quite understand if you do not wish to engage in this discussion.
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
I've read some bonkers shit over the course of World War Z but this is a new perigee.
The British "Tranche 1" Typhoons are at Software Block 5. A tranche is a commercial structure; it's the block which defines capability. The RAF forked the software at B5 (Change Request 193) to get austere A2G capability ahead of the other partner nations which didn't care about it. This was to enable the beautiful dream of a Typhoon to Afghanistan deployment that never happened. Instead we got the Herrick Tornado detachment which cost a million quid a week for seven years.
So we had 53 aircraft that have no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch. The RAF lack the expertise, will and money to support the B5 software so the aircraft are obsolete which is why they are in the "reduce to produce" process. ie scrapped for parts.
These aircraft would be of significant net negative value to the Polish Air Force as they are colossally expensive to operate and can employ none of their existing weapons. They are also functionally inferior to the F-16s they already have and the F-35As they have on order.
Thanks for the info.
"no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch"
As someone who worked at the hardware/software level, what are the constraining factors to moving back onto the software branch? Is the hardware actually very different, and if so, it is it modularised?
Potentially an ASIC? Would have a specified instruction set rather than anything programmable.
Given the fantastic cost of the project, I'd be amazed if such things were not easy to change and swap. If they are not, the it reflects very badly on the project.
A lot of the issues come from the incredible duration of the EF's development. The first IPA flew in 1994, the fully mission capable 4 nation software release came in 2010 and there and a major version was released again in 2018. None of the original development systems exist any more (they were some DEC thing), all of the original programmers have gone to nerd heaven and the organisation that manages the software had gone through multiple re-structuring, names and version numbering schemes. It's a fucking miracle that it works at all to my uneducated and inexpert view of software.
There is Labour support for increased arms supplies.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1510545951160741891 I’m not going to post photos of the Russian atrocities in Bucha and elsewhere in Ukraine but they are surely reason enough for 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 🇪🇺 and NATO to provide tanks and other offensive weaponry to 🇺🇦 ? We cannot stand by and pretend we haven’t seen the genocidal war crimes.
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
We should give them the tools to push the Russians out of their country and its also time to to turn the gas imports off and fuck the consequences. The war crimes being committed by the Russian regime are horrific and yet countries allied to Ukraine are spending billions of dollars per week propping up the Russians.
Absolutely.
A consensus has been built in the US / Europe to provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry like NLAWs. Let's build a new consensus in favour or providing offensive weaponry. We can start with the US/UK/Poland/Baltic's and progress from there.
And if there is anytime to turn off the gas, the start of Spring is the time to do it.
Let's ensure Russia is defeated.
I totally agree with the sentiment, but we need to look at practicalities. The thread I posted below go into it a little. NLAWs require very little training to use, and zero maintenance. A tank might require a fair amount of training to use, and an f-load of maintenance - both by the crew and a trained mechanics cadre. A fighter pilot requires a vast amount of training, and the planes require vast amount of maintenance - and type-specific maintenance at that.
The best things for Ukrainians to get are things that require little training or maintenance to use, or which replicate the training and maintenance they already have.
It's a couple of years too late to think about arming them with anything more than a limited number of western offensive complex weapons.
But there's still lots we can probably do within those bounds.
For those interested in the Hungarian election latest turnout at 1pm local time was 40.01% this is slightly lower than 2018 but well ahead of 2014. And there was a record of 14.1% voting between 11 and 1pm .
Higher turnout is expected to help the opposition especially as they are not splintered like 2018. This is especially important when you look at the 2018 figures.
In that election even though Fidesz only got 34% of those able to vote they ended up with 67% of seats .
The full figures were
34% Fidesz 36% for the anti Fidesz parties 30% did not vote
The highest turnout so far is in Budapest with 42.7% .
Fidesz is still favoured to win the election as the opposition would need around 4% lead to have a chance of a majority .
Budapest AISI is the best area for the opposition, so that is a good indicator, but I don't know perhaps it was also a high turnout there last time?
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
I've read some bonkers shit over the course of World War Z but this is a new perigee.
The British "Tranche 1" Typhoons are at Software Block 5. A tranche is a commercial structure; it's the block which defines capability. The RAF forked the software at B5 (Change Request 193) to get austere A2G capability ahead of the other partner nations which didn't care about it. This was to enable the beautiful dream of a Typhoon to Afghanistan deployment that never happened. Instead we got the Herrick Tornado detachment which cost a million quid a week for seven years.
So we had 53 aircraft that have no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch. The RAF lack the expertise, will and money to support the B5 software so the aircraft are obsolete which is why they are in the "reduce to produce" process. ie scrapped for parts.
These aircraft would be of significant net negative value to the Polish Air Force as they are colossally expensive to operate and can employ none of their existing weapons. They are also functionally inferior to the F-16s they already have and the F-35As they have on order.
Thanks for the info.
"no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch"
As someone who worked at the hardware/software level, what are the constraining factors to moving back onto the software branch? Is the hardware actually very different, and if so, it is it modularised?
Potentially an ASIC? Would have a specified instruction set rather than anything programmable.
Given the fantastic cost of the project, I'd be amazed if such things were not easy to change and swap. If they are not, the it reflects very badly on the project.
A lot of the issues come from the incredible duration of the EF's development. The first IPA flew in 1994, the fully mission capable 4 nation software release came in 2010 and there and a major version was released again in 2018. None of the original development systems exist any more (they were some DEC thing), all of the original programmers have gone to nerd heaven and the organisation that manages the software had gone through multiple re-structuring, names and version numbering schemes. It's a fucking miracle that it works at all to my uneducated and inexpert view of software.
A friend of mine worked on EF weapons integration at the start of his career. He went around the EF at Duxford and said a missile test he'd worked on had been fired off that airframe.
I am coming to conclusion these people have some weird BDSM kink for being glued to things. The sort of people who would actually love Leon's flint dildo business.
A consensus has been built in the US / Europe to provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry like NLAWs. Let's build a new consensus in favour or providing offensive weaponry. We can start with the US/UK/Poland/Baltic's and progress from there.
And if there is anytime to turn off the gas, the start of Spring is the time to do it.
Let's ensure Russia is defeated.
Yes and no. Happy to see the back of Putin and his disgusting band of thugs but there will still be a Russia after all is over and what we must try out utmost to avoid is a revanchist Russia which sits isolated, distrustful and vengeful of the West and gets ever closer to China.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
The de-programming of the Russian people will take time but it's a huge part of this process and we need to see so/me sense of the strategic post-war vision for Euro-Russian and NATO-Russian relations.
No, but other societies and times have done so. It is clearly not so in contemporary Britain. I use it as an example of a society changing, and being more accepting of social deviance.
OK, thanks for clarifying. So mental illness by this definition is essentially anything that would not be considered "the norm" by wider society?
I read it as you did, and thought Foxy sounded – well – erm, a bit crackers. Mental illness is surely what it says it is: a malfunctioning of normal brain function. The views of any particular society would – it seems to me – be irrelevant to this.
Just because some societies (bafflingly, wrongly) consider homosexuality and atheism wrong, doesn't make homosexuality and atheism an illness of any kind.
You could better argue that the societies themselves were sick for preaching against such freedom of thought and sexuality.
I think that's where I was going with my thought process too.
If atheism isn't a mental illness today, why would it be a mental illness in ye olde less enlightened times, unless any thought that differed from the accepted societal norm was deemed to be an illness?
A contrary view, yes, and one not accepted by society as a whole, sure, but a "mental illness"? I'm not sure that's a definition I'd apply.
Homosexuality is maybe the better example. That was widely classed as a mental illness until relatively recently.
I have been an advocate of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of our strategy to reduce CO2 emissions, including for power generation and 'blue' hydrogen to decarbonise the gas grid.
The war has made me rethink. The above approach would actually increase our natural gas consumption, due to the energy inefficiencies associated with CCS. A decarbonisation strategy that is more aligned with domestic self sufficiency in energy supply is now, in my opinion, the way we should be heading. It may well cost more, and be more disruptive (e.g., replacing everyone's gas boiler with a shitty air source heat pump), but priorities have shifted.
So, lots of renewables, electrolytic 'green' hydrogen, energy storage, electrification.
There is still a role for CCS, decarbonising highly emitting industries and on Energy from Waste plants, making the latter net-negative, but a much diminished role from what I have previously called for.
If the government is to U-turn in this area, then they've got around a year to do so before final investment decisions are made. Let's see what happens...
Extracting more of our own gas also fits the bill.
I agree that for the hydrocarbons we do consume, we should endeavour to maximise the domestic supply so long as the environmental consequences are not more damaging than the alternatives. And that should include coal.
Saying 'no new developments' is bonkers, as long as we have ongoing demand. It is worse than virtue signalling, it is economically damaging and threatens energy security until we are weaned off fossil fuels.
Removing coal from our energy mix was a huge environmental gain, just from air quality improvements. We should, of course, be removing all of the barriers to domestic oil and gas extraction. The idea that by eliminating domestic industries we would magically reduce demand was always ridiculous. We should never have been in this position of having huge oil and gas reserves in the UK but also being reliant on imports. Labour and the Tories have both put us in this position and it's time for grown up government to tell the green lobby to get fucked.
Picking up on your last point, from my perspective the problem is with some elements of the green movement training their guns on the wrong target.
Their focus should be on the demand side of the balance sheet. Eliminate consumption of hydrocarbons and there would then be no incentive to invest in new production. Instead, they advocate a policy that just makes us more reliant on energy imports from an array of undemocratic countries, and achieves no reduction in CO2 emissions.
Look at the Cambo oilfield and the proposed coking coal mine in Cumbria. Their development will not increase consumption, it will just make us more self sufficient. More jobs, more tax revenues, improved balance of payments, reduced supply chain risk.
In addition to the Cambo Oilfield and the Cumbria Coal Mine, I would add the the Lancashire shall gas fields.
Using Coal, oil and gas imported form Russia instead of Produced in the UK has never and would never reduces carbon output, (if anything when you add the Carbon emitted in transportation, it might be slightly less carbon by getting it out the ground here)
If we what to reduces the CO2 emitted in the UK we could/should just introduce a tax on CO2 emitted, start it small, very small, but with a large rise, announces the rates and timescale of that rise, at the start, even if mostly it does not kick in for many years. and youse some/most of the money razed to boost peoples income (benefits) and cut tax for Companies and individuals.
This would provide all the right incentives to develop and use CO2-reducing technology and allocate large amounts of capital to reducing CO2 emotions, while keeping living standards high and a good biasness environment.
What you propose is what we have - the Emissions Trading Scheme. This however has two problems:
Keep the carbon tax low so that business does not suffer and it is cheaper to carry on emitting than to decarbonise.
Ratchet up the carbon tax and business either goes bust or relocates to a low carbon tax jurisdiction. 'Carbon leakage.'
The ETS provides a stick. Governments also have to provide a carrot. Tax breaks, contracts for difference, grant funding, etc to facilitate the transition.
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
I've read some bonkers shit over the course of World War Z but this is a new perigee.
The British "Tranche 1" Typhoons are at Software Block 5. A tranche is a commercial structure; it's the block which defines capability. The RAF forked the software at B5 (Change Request 193) to get austere A2G capability ahead of the other partner nations which didn't care about it. This was to enable the beautiful dream of a Typhoon to Afghanistan deployment that never happened. Instead we got the Herrick Tornado detachment which cost a million quid a week for seven years.
So we had 53 aircraft that have no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch. The RAF lack the expertise, will and money to support the B5 software so the aircraft are obsolete which is why they are in the "reduce to produce" process. ie scrapped for parts.
These aircraft would be of significant net negative value to the Polish Air Force as they are colossally expensive to operate and can employ none of their existing weapons. They are also functionally inferior to the F-16s they already have and the F-35As they have on order.
Thanks for the info.
"no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch"
As someone who worked at the hardware/software level, what are the constraining factors to moving back onto the software branch? Is the hardware actually very different, and if so, it is it modularised?
I don't know exactly but it definitely needs new hardware and (I think) a structural change in a forward fuselage cross member to accommodate it. Then you've got to recertify the whole thing for flight, weapons release, etc. The Prime Minister will be one of Johnson's as yet unborn future bastards by the time all that happened.
That doesn't sound massive. I'll bet you any money: if it decides it has to be done (tm), it will be done in a matter of weeks. If that.
(And yes, IANAE, IMBBAA, etc, etc)
Nah, if they're moving from an ASIC to a generalised CPU in a combat setting the recertification process will be huge. The ASIC timings will have been built into the software specifications. The room for error in emulating the ASIC instructions and timings will be nil, which will require extensive testing.
There are a lot of assumptions in that. It'd be great to know exactly what the problem are - and we probably never will for (secrecy) reasons.
First that it would be an entirely pointless project. No one wants to take on the enormous support costs - or indeed spend years training pilots - on a lot of aircraft incompatible with what they already have, and which will be unplayable scrap within a decade.
Particularly when there’s a more capable system widely available, and far more widely deployed worldwide, which carries the certainty of an upgrade route, and potential for later on sale. (The F16)
Hundreds? Aren't these things supposed to be the size of a football stadium or something?
It's academic anyway. If Nimbies regularly succeed in blocking fifty Barratt boxes here or a windmill there then the chances of modular reactors ever being built are precisely zero. A nuclear power plant isn't generally considered to be beneficial to local house prices.
Small reactors. The sort of thing that fits in a smallish attack submarine. I'm very much in favour, from the little we know atm, and especially if they don't use highly-enriched uranium.
I don't really see how that helps with the politics. All the people who were opposed to having a large reactor near their houses will be equally opposed to having a small reactor, and there won't be any compensating local jobs either.
You call it an SMR and people think that this is referring to a Steam Methane Reformer, making blue hydrogen, and welcome the investment.
The only way I can think of to get it past the British voters it is to call it a nuclear submarine. Start with actual nuclear submarines sailing up rivers in times of crisis to provide power to the long-suffering electricity user. Then start making more reactors in the shape of nuclear submarines and transport them to their destinations on khaki-coloured lorries. Start out as an emergency thing that doesn't need planning permission as it's ostensibly temporary, then cover them in poppies and nobody will be able to remove them without dishonouring the poppies.
There's probably some CCH culture warrior assiduously noting down your suggestions.
The Currant Bun provides an un-paywalled account of the saga, including such details as Warburton is an organist (insert your own predictive text jokes) and that two parliamentary aides complained, and that:-
Last night The Sunday Times published a damning picture of him sitting at a table with lines of cocaine on a baking tray.
The controversy sent shockwaves across Westminster after the paper reported that Warburton said he would repay £160 to the woman for ordering the Class A drug for him.
I love the Sun's implication that the shocking part is Warburton's offer to pay!
I have been an advocate of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of our strategy to reduce CO2 emissions, including for power generation and 'blue' hydrogen to decarbonise the gas grid.
The war has made me rethink. The above approach would actually increase our natural gas consumption, due to the energy inefficiencies associated with CCS. A decarbonisation strategy that is more aligned with domestic self sufficiency in energy supply is now, in my opinion, the way we should be heading. It may well cost more, and be more disruptive (e.g., replacing everyone's gas boiler with a shitty air source heat pump), but priorities have shifted.
So, lots of renewables, electrolytic 'green' hydrogen, energy storage, electrification.
There is still a role for CCS, decarbonising highly emitting industries and on Energy from Waste plants, making the latter net-negative, but a much diminished role from what I have previously called for.
If the government is to U-turn in this area, then they've got around a year to do so before final investment decisions are made. Let's see what happens...
Extracting more of our own gas also fits the bill.
I agree that for the hydrocarbons we do consume, we should endeavour to maximise the domestic supply so long as the environmental consequences are not more damaging than the alternatives. And that should include coal.
Saying 'no new developments' is bonkers, as long as we have ongoing demand. It is worse than virtue signalling, it is economically damaging and threatens energy security until we are weaned off fossil fuels.
Removing coal from our energy mix was a huge environmental gain, just from air quality improvements. We should, of course, be removing all of the barriers to domestic oil and gas extraction. The idea that by eliminating domestic industries we would magically reduce demand was always ridiculous. We should never have been in this position of having huge oil and gas reserves in the UK but also being reliant on imports. Labour and the Tories have both put us in this position and it's time for grown up government to tell the green lobby to get fucked.
Picking up on your last point, from my perspective the problem is with some elements of the green movement training their guns on the wrong target.
Their focus should be on the demand side of the balance sheet. Eliminate consumption of hydrocarbons and there would then be no incentive to invest in new production. Instead, they advocate a policy that just makes us more reliant on energy imports from an array of undemocratic countries, and achieves no reduction in CO2 emissions.
Look at the Cambo oilfield and the proposed coking coal mine in Cumbria. Their development will not increase consumption, it will just make us more self sufficient. More jobs, more tax revenues, improved balance of payments, reduced supply chain risk.
In addition to the Cambo Oilfield and the Cumbria Coal Mine, I would add the the Lancashire shall gas fields.
Using Coal, oil and gas imported form Russia instead of Produced in the UK has never and would never reduces carbon output, (if anything when you add the Carbon emitted in transportation, it might be slightly less carbon by getting it out the ground here)
If we what to reduces the CO2 emitted in the UK we could/should just introduce a tax on CO2 emitted, start it small, very small, but with a large rise, announces the rates and timescale of that rise, at the start, even if mostly it does not kick in for many years. and youse some/most of the money razed to boost peoples income (benefits) and cut tax for Companies and individuals.
This would provide all the right incentives to develop and use CO2-reducing technology and allocate large amounts of capital to reducing CO2 emotions, while keeping living standards high and a good biasness environment.
The plans for the Cumbria coal mine rely on exporting the vast bulk of its output, and keeping it open for at least three decades. There’s no good case for it.
No, but other societies and times have done so. It is clearly not so in contemporary Britain. I use it as an example of a society changing, and being more accepting of social deviance.
OK, thanks for clarifying. So mental illness by this definition is essentially anything that would not be considered "the norm" by wider society?
I read it as you did, and thought Foxy sounded – well – erm, a bit crackers. Mental illness is surely what it says it is: a malfunctioning of normal brain function. The views of any particular society would – it seems to me – be irrelevant to this.
Just because some societies (bafflingly, wrongly) consider homosexuality and atheism wrong, doesn't make homosexuality and atheism an illness of any kind.
You could better argue that the societies themselves were sick for preaching against such freedom of thought and sexuality.
I think that's where I was going with my thought process too.
If atheism isn't a mental illness today, why would it be a mental illness in ye olde less enlightened times, unless any thought that differed from the accepted societal norm was deemed to be an illness?
A contrary view, yes, and one not accepted by society as a whole, sure, but a "mental illness"? I'm not sure that's a definition I'd apply.
Homosexuality is maybe the better example. That was widely classed as a mental illness until relatively recently.
It may have been classed as one, but it definitively was not one. Foxy seems to be suggesting calling something a mental illness makes it a mental illness. Not so.
There is Labour support for increased arms supplies.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1510545951160741891 I’m not going to post photos of the Russian atrocities in Bucha and elsewhere in Ukraine but they are surely reason enough for 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 🇪🇺 and NATO to provide tanks and other offensive weaponry to 🇺🇦 ? We cannot stand by and pretend we haven’t seen the genocidal war crimes.
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
We should give them the tools to push the Russians out of their country and its also time to to turn the gas imports off and fuck the consequences. The war crimes being committed by the Russian regime are horrific and yet countries allied to Ukraine are spending billions of dollars per week propping up the Russians.
Absolutely.
A consensus has been built in the US / Europe to provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry like NLAWs. Let's build a new consensus in favour or providing offensive weaponry. We can start with the US/UK/Poland/Baltic's and progress from there.
And if there is anytime to turn off the gas, the start of Spring is the time to do it.
Let's ensure Russia is defeated.
I totally agree with the sentiment, but we need to look at practicalities. The thread I posted below go into it a little. NLAWs require very little training to use, and zero maintenance. A tank might require a fair amount of training to use, and an f-load of maintenance - both by the crew and a trained mechanics cadre. A fighter pilot requires a vast amount of training, and the planes require vast amount of maintenance - and type-specific maintenance at that.
The best things for Ukrainians to get are things that require little training or maintenance to use, or which replicate the training and maintenance they already have.
It's a couple of years too late to think about arming them with anything more than a limited number of western offensive complex weapons.
But there's still lots we can probably do within those bounds.
Yes, that is all true, but, the T72 has been used by the Ukrainians for 30 years, there will be lots of people who have used one in there National service time, over the last 10 years, who have now come back to the military, who if given an T72 could operate it (and perhaps maintain it) If a tank was given now, if in good working order, presumably it could take part in a week or 2 offensive to recapture some area before it needed too much extra maintainece.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
I don't see any feasible route to this. There are no Russian LibDems waiting in the wings to take over and starting fixing potholes and doing bar charts.
The Currant Bun provides an un-paywalled account of the saga, including such details as Warburton is an organist (insert your own predictive text jokes) and that two parliamentary aides complained, and that:-
Last night The Sunday Times published a damning picture of him sitting at a table with lines of cocaine on a baking tray.
The controversy sent shockwaves across Westminster after the paper reported that Warburton said he would repay £160 to the woman for ordering the Class A drug for him.
I love the Sun's implication that the shocking part is Warburton's offer to pay!
"The woman is yet to make any complaint to the police or any other investigating power saying she wants to forget about the incident."
But I reported him to the Sunday Times, complete with photos and texts....Bit odd for somebody who wants to forget about it.
A consensus has been built in the US / Europe to provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry like NLAWs. Let's build a new consensus in favour or providing offensive weaponry. We can start with the US/UK/Poland/Baltic's and progress from there.
And if there is anytime to turn off the gas, the start of Spring is the time to do it.
Let's ensure Russia is defeated.
Yes and no. Happy to see the back of Putin and his disgusting band of thugs but there will still be a Russia after all is over and what we must try out utmost to avoid is a revanchist Russia which sits isolated, distrustful and vengeful of the West and gets ever closer to China.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
The de-programming of the Russian people will take time but it's a huge part of this process and we need to see so/me sense of the strategic post-war vision for Euro-Russian and NATO-Russian relations.
I'm sorry, this sounds as deluded as those who were saying the same when Putin took over from Yeltsin. Sadly for the Russian people their path takes them inexorably towards become a Chinese subordinate.
A consensus has been built in the US / Europe to provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry like NLAWs. Let's build a new consensus in favour or providing offensive weaponry. We can start with the US/UK/Poland/Baltic's and progress from there.
And if there is anytime to turn off the gas, the start of Spring is the time to do it.
Let's ensure Russia is defeated.
Yes and no. Happy to see the back of Putin and his disgusting band of thugs but there will still be a Russia after all is over and what we must try out utmost to avoid is a revanchist Russia which sits isolated, distrustful and vengeful of the West and gets ever closer to China.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
The de-programming of the Russian people will take time but it's a huge part of this process and we need to see so/me sense of the strategic post-war vision for Euro-Russian and NATO-Russian relations.
Indeed. European security and the defence of Western liberal democratic ideals and the rules-based international order are best achieved through bringing Russia firmly into the Western fold.
The trick is how to get from here to there. My guess it will take a generation or more. We had a chance in the 90s and we (Russia and the West collectively) blew it. I think Putin carries the bulk of the blame for that, but Western triumphalism played its part.
I have been an advocate of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of our strategy to reduce CO2 emissions, including for power generation and 'blue' hydrogen to decarbonise the gas grid.
The war has made me rethink. The above approach would actually increase our natural gas consumption, due to the energy inefficiencies associated with CCS. A decarbonisation strategy that is more aligned with domestic self sufficiency in energy supply is now, in my opinion, the way we should be heading. It may well cost more, and be more disruptive (e.g., replacing everyone's gas boiler with a shitty air source heat pump), but priorities have shifted.
So, lots of renewables, electrolytic 'green' hydrogen, energy storage, electrification.
There is still a role for CCS, decarbonising highly emitting industries and on Energy from Waste plants, making the latter net-negative, but a much diminished role from what I have previously called for.
If the government is to U-turn in this area, then they've got around a year to do so before final investment decisions are made. Let's see what happens...
Extracting more of our own gas also fits the bill.
I agree that for the hydrocarbons we do consume, we should endeavour to maximise the domestic supply so long as the environmental consequences are not more damaging than the alternatives. And that should include coal.
Saying 'no new developments' is bonkers, as long as we have ongoing demand. It is worse than virtue signalling, it is economically damaging and threatens energy security until we are weaned off fossil fuels.
Removing coal from our energy mix was a huge environmental gain, just from air quality improvements. We should, of course, be removing all of the barriers to domestic oil and gas extraction. The idea that by eliminating domestic industries we would magically reduce demand was always ridiculous. We should never have been in this position of having huge oil and gas reserves in the UK but also being reliant on imports. Labour and the Tories have both put us in this position and it's time for grown up government to tell the green lobby to get fucked.
Picking up on your last point, from my perspective the problem is with some elements of the green movement training their guns on the wrong target.
Their focus should be on the demand side of the balance sheet. Eliminate consumption of hydrocarbons and there would then be no incentive to invest in new production. Instead, they advocate a policy that just makes us more reliant on energy imports from an array of undemocratic countries, and achieves no reduction in CO2 emissions.
Look at the Cambo oilfield and the proposed coking coal mine in Cumbria. Their development will not increase consumption, it will just make us more self sufficient. More jobs, more tax revenues, improved balance of payments, reduced supply chain risk.
In addition to the Cambo Oilfield and the Cumbria Coal Mine, I would add the the Lancashire shall gas fields.
Using Coal, oil and gas imported form Russia instead of Produced in the UK has never and would never reduces carbon output, (if anything when you add the Carbon emitted in transportation, it might be slightly less carbon by getting it out the ground here)
If we what to reduces the CO2 emitted in the UK we could/should just introduce a tax on CO2 emitted, start it small, very small, but with a large rise, announces the rates and timescale of that rise, at the start, even if mostly it does not kick in for many years. and youse some/most of the money razed to boost peoples income (benefits) and cut tax for Companies and individuals.
This would provide all the right incentives to develop and use CO2-reducing technology and allocate large amounts of capital to reducing CO2 emotions, while keeping living standards high and a good biasness environment.
The plans for the Cumbria coal mine rely on exporting the vast bulk of its output, and keeping it open for at least three decades. There’s no good case for it.
So you think that all conventional iron and steel production will have gone in that time frame?
The Currant Bun provides an un-paywalled account of the saga, including such details as Warburton is an organist (insert your own predictive text jokes) and that two parliamentary aides complained, and that:-
Last night The Sunday Times published a damning picture of him sitting at a table with lines of cocaine on a baking tray.
The controversy sent shockwaves across Westminster after the paper reported that Warburton said he would repay £160 to the woman for ordering the Class A drug for him.
I love the Sun's implication that the shocking part is Warburton's offer to pay!
Above the Sun headline about him "stripping naked and groping a woman's breasts" is a photo of Warburton with Theresa May. Made me laugh, anyway.
I have been an advocate of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of our strategy to reduce CO2 emissions, including for power generation and 'blue' hydrogen to decarbonise the gas grid.
The war has made me rethink. The above approach would actually increase our natural gas consumption, due to the energy inefficiencies associated with CCS. A decarbonisation strategy that is more aligned with domestic self sufficiency in energy supply is now, in my opinion, the way we should be heading. It may well cost more, and be more disruptive (e.g., replacing everyone's gas boiler with a shitty air source heat pump), but priorities have shifted.
So, lots of renewables, electrolytic 'green' hydrogen, energy storage, electrification.
There is still a role for CCS, decarbonising highly emitting industries and on Energy from Waste plants, making the latter net-negative, but a much diminished role from what I have previously called for.
If the government is to U-turn in this area, then they've got around a year to do so before final investment decisions are made. Let's see what happens...
Extracting more of our own gas also fits the bill.
I agree that for the hydrocarbons we do consume, we should endeavour to maximise the domestic supply so long as the environmental consequences are not more damaging than the alternatives. And that should include coal.
Saying 'no new developments' is bonkers, as long as we have ongoing demand. It is worse than virtue signalling, it is economically damaging and threatens energy security until we are weaned off fossil fuels.
Removing coal from our energy mix was a huge environmental gain, just from air quality improvements. We should, of course, be removing all of the barriers to domestic oil and gas extraction. The idea that by eliminating domestic industries we would magically reduce demand was always ridiculous. We should never have been in this position of having huge oil and gas reserves in the UK but also being reliant on imports. Labour and the Tories have both put us in this position and it's time for grown up government to tell the green lobby to get fucked.
Picking up on your last point, from my perspective the problem is with some elements of the green movement training their guns on the wrong target.
Their focus should be on the demand side of the balance sheet. Eliminate consumption of hydrocarbons and there would then be no incentive to invest in new production. Instead, they advocate a policy that just makes us more reliant on energy imports from an array of undemocratic countries, and achieves no reduction in CO2 emissions.
Look at the Cambo oilfield and the proposed coking coal mine in Cumbria. Their development will not increase consumption, it will just make us more self sufficient. More jobs, more tax revenues, improved balance of payments, reduced supply chain risk.
In addition to the Cambo Oilfield and the Cumbria Coal Mine, I would add the the Lancashire shall gas fields.
Using Coal, oil and gas imported form Russia instead of Produced in the UK has never and would never reduces carbon output, (if anything when you add the Carbon emitted in transportation, it might be slightly less carbon by getting it out the ground here)
If we what to reduces the CO2 emitted in the UK we could/should just introduce a tax on CO2 emitted, start it small, very small, but with a large rise, announces the rates and timescale of that rise, at the start, even if mostly it does not kick in for many years. and youse some/most of the money razed to boost peoples income (benefits) and cut tax for Companies and individuals.
This would provide all the right incentives to develop and use CO2-reducing technology and allocate large amounts of capital to reducing CO2 emotions, while keeping living standards high and a good biasness environment.
The plans for the Cumbria coal mine rely on exporting the vast bulk of its output, and keeping it open for at least three decades. There’s no good case for it.
If the Coal was exported to Germany, and replaced Cole form Russia, then its no extra CO2 but would mean that an friendly nation is less dependants on Russia, and no additional CO2, if it replaced the low Quality lignite coal mined in Germany then it would reduces Germanys CO2 emotions.
The Currant Bun provides an un-paywalled account of the saga, including such details as Warburton is an organist (insert your own predictive text jokes) and that two parliamentary aides complained, and that:-
Last night The Sunday Times published a damning picture of him sitting at a table with lines of cocaine on a baking tray.
The controversy sent shockwaves across Westminster after the paper reported that Warburton said he would repay £160 to the woman for ordering the Class A drug for him.
I love the Sun's implication that the shocking part is Warburton's offer to pay!
"The woman is yet to make any complaint to the police or any other investigating power saying she wants to forget about the incident."
But I reported him to the Sunday Times, complete with photos and texts....Bit odd for somebody who wants to forget about it.
It is all a bit odd. It looks like the investigation was triggered by aides' complaints but the juicy stuff is separate, though I've not seen the ST's original report.
The Currant Bun provides an un-paywalled account of the saga, including such details as Warburton is an organist (insert your own predictive text jokes) and that two parliamentary aides complained, and that:-
Last night The Sunday Times published a damning picture of him sitting at a table with lines of cocaine on a baking tray.
The controversy sent shockwaves across Westminster after the paper reported that Warburton said he would repay £160 to the woman for ordering the Class A drug for him.
I love the Sun's implication that the shocking part is Warburton's offer to pay!
This story seems almost charmingly quaint like it arrived through a wormhole in the space-time continuum from the mid 90s. I think I might listen to Verve and have a stranglewank over Diana.
No, but other societies and times have done so. It is clearly not so in contemporary Britain. I use it as an example of a society changing, and being more accepting of social deviance.
OK, thanks for clarifying. So mental illness by this definition is essentially anything that would not be considered "the norm" by wider society?
I read it as you did, and thought Foxy sounded – well – erm, a bit crackers. Mental illness is surely what it says it is: a malfunctioning of normal brain function. The views of any particular society would – it seems to me – be irrelevant to this.
Just because some societies (bafflingly, wrongly) consider homosexuality and atheism wrong, doesn't make homosexuality and atheism an illness of any kind.
You could better argue that the societies themselves were sick for preaching against such freedom of thought and sexuality.
I think that's where I was going with my thought process too.
If atheism isn't a mental illness today, why would it be a mental illness in ye olde less enlightened times, unless any thought that differed from the accepted societal norm was deemed to be an illness?
A contrary view, yes, and one not accepted by society as a whole, sure, but a "mental illness"? I'm not sure that's a definition I'd apply.
Homosexuality is maybe the better example. That was widely classed as a mental illness until relatively recently.
It may have been classed as one, but it definitively was not one. Foxy seems to be suggesting calling something a mental illness makes it a mental illness. Not so.
I think he was saying societies sometimes consider a deviation from what's deemed normal as being not just unnatural but a sign of a malfunctioning brain, ie a kind of mental illness. And with homosexuality it was officially classed as that.
I have been an advocate of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of our strategy to reduce CO2 emissions, including for power generation and 'blue' hydrogen to decarbonise the gas grid.
The war has made me rethink. The above approach would actually increase our natural gas consumption, due to the energy inefficiencies associated with CCS. A decarbonisation strategy that is more aligned with domestic self sufficiency in energy supply is now, in my opinion, the way we should be heading. It may well cost more, and be more disruptive (e.g., replacing everyone's gas boiler with a shitty air source heat pump), but priorities have shifted.
So, lots of renewables, electrolytic 'green' hydrogen, energy storage, electrification.
There is still a role for CCS, decarbonising highly emitting industries and on Energy from Waste plants, making the latter net-negative, but a much diminished role from what I have previously called for.
If the government is to U-turn in this area, then they've got around a year to do so before final investment decisions are made. Let's see what happens...
Extracting more of our own gas also fits the bill.
I agree that for the hydrocarbons we do consume, we should endeavour to maximise the domestic supply so long as the environmental consequences are not more damaging than the alternatives. And that should include coal.
Saying 'no new developments' is bonkers, as long as we have ongoing demand. It is worse than virtue signalling, it is economically damaging and threatens energy security until we are weaned off fossil fuels.
Removing coal from our energy mix was a huge environmental gain, just from air quality improvements. We should, of course, be removing all of the barriers to domestic oil and gas extraction. The idea that by eliminating domestic industries we would magically reduce demand was always ridiculous. We should never have been in this position of having huge oil and gas reserves in the UK but also being reliant on imports. Labour and the Tories have both put us in this position and it's time for grown up government to tell the green lobby to get fucked.
Picking up on your last point, from my perspective the problem is with some elements of the green movement training their guns on the wrong target.
Their focus should be on the demand side of the balance sheet. Eliminate consumption of hydrocarbons and there would then be no incentive to invest in new production. Instead, they advocate a policy that just makes us more reliant on energy imports from an array of undemocratic countries, and achieves no reduction in CO2 emissions.
Look at the Cambo oilfield and the proposed coking coal mine in Cumbria. Their development will not increase consumption, it will just make us more self sufficient. More jobs, more tax revenues, improved balance of payments, reduced supply chain risk.
In addition to the Cambo Oilfield and the Cumbria Coal Mine, I would add the the Lancashire shall gas fields.
Using Coal, oil and gas imported form Russia instead of Produced in the UK has never and would never reduces carbon output, (if anything when you add the Carbon emitted in transportation, it might be slightly less carbon by getting it out the ground here)
If we what to reduces the CO2 emitted in the UK we could/should just introduce a tax on CO2 emitted, start it small, very small, but with a large rise, announces the rates and timescale of that rise, at the start, even if mostly it does not kick in for many years. and youse some/most of the money razed to boost peoples income (benefits) and cut tax for Companies and individuals.
This would provide all the right incentives to develop and use CO2-reducing technology and allocate large amounts of capital to reducing CO2 emotions, while keeping living standards high and a good biasness environment.
The plans for the Cumbria coal mine rely on exporting the vast bulk of its output, and keeping it open for at least three decades. There’s no good case for it.
If the Coal was exported to Germany, and replaced Cole form Russia, then its no extra CO2 but would mean that an friendly nation is less dependants on Russia, and no additional CO2, if it replaced the low Quality lignite coal mined in Germany then it would reduces Germanys CO2 emotions.
I'm sorry, this sounds as deluded as those who were saying the same when Putin took over from Yeltsin. Sadly for the Russian people their path takes them inexorably towards become a Chinese subordinate.
At least I'm trying to come up with a way to stop that whereas you just wring your hands and assume it's a fait accompli. The inevitability of an adversarial relationship with Russia isn't a certainty.
As someone who believes in liberal capitalism, do you not see the inherent benefit to all sides of moving Russia away from the kleptocrat economy of the post-Communist era toward something more recognisable as the European economic model and if so how do we achieve that?
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
I don't see any feasible route to this. There are no Russian LibDems waiting in the wings to take over and starting fixing potholes and doing bar charts.
There are, but they're all in a kind of internal exile from politics. If the situation changes then you would see them come out of the woodwork.
The Currant Bun provides an un-paywalled account of the saga, including such details as Warburton is an organist (insert your own predictive text jokes) and that two parliamentary aides complained, and that:-
Last night The Sunday Times published a damning picture of him sitting at a table with lines of cocaine on a baking tray.
The controversy sent shockwaves across Westminster after the paper reported that Warburton said he would repay £160 to the woman for ordering the Class A drug for him.
I love the Sun's implication that the shocking part is Warburton's offer to pay!
This story seems almost charmingly quaint like it arrived through a wormhole in the space-time continuum from the mid 90s. I think I might listen to Verve and have a stranglewank over Diana.
I think they missed the various confessions during the Tory leadership campaign.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
I don't see any feasible route to this. There are no Russian LibDems waiting in the wings to take over and starting fixing potholes and doing bar charts.
On this, I agree with you. Unfortunately, the brainwashed Russian people seem to be foursquare behind Putin and his New Patriotic War, and all the active dissident elements - mainly the net-savvy young - have either fled already, or been silenced by brutal repression
The only hope is a palace coup, but as the elite are all implicated that seems unlikely.
That leaves three more likely outcomes. 1. Russian is so heavily defeated we can actually enforce regime change as the people DO turn against him as they starve to death. 2. A terrible “peace” which leaves Russian with a sort of victory which is then followed by many years of Cold War. 3. A total all out west-v-Russia/China war which probably destroys half of human life.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
I don't see any feasible route to this. There are no Russian LibDems waiting in the wings to take over and starting fixing potholes and doing bar charts.
There are Russians who call themselves Liberal Democrats - they take a different approach to potholes and bar charts I suspect.
So what's your prospect for relations with Russia post-Putin - are we going to have to maintain military forces in Poland, Latvia, Estonia and the like for ever?
A consensus has been built in the US / Europe to provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry like NLAWs. Let's build a new consensus in favour or providing offensive weaponry. We can start with the US/UK/Poland/Baltic's and progress from there.
And if there is anytime to turn off the gas, the start of Spring is the time to do it.
Let's ensure Russia is defeated.
Yes and no. Happy to see the back of Putin and his disgusting band of thugs but there will still be a Russia after all is over and what we must try out utmost to avoid is a revanchist Russia which sits isolated, distrustful and vengeful of the West and gets ever closer to China.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
The de-programming of the Russian people will take time but it's a huge part of this process and we need to see so/me sense of the strategic post-war vision for Euro-Russian and NATO-Russian relations.
Agree we need to tread a careful balance. But that balance should not be pushing a peace deal where Russia or her proxy states gain territory. Otherwise we invite future aggression and reward unprovoked invasions. That necessarily requires defeat for Russia.
I would also like to see more outreach to the Russian people. Such as visas for those who stand against Putin. And an open door to rejoin Europe if Putin and co are replaced and the new leaders recognise the atrocities committed.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
I don't see any feasible route to this. There are no Russian LibDems waiting in the wings to take over and starting fixing potholes and doing bar charts.
There are Russians who call themselves Liberal Democrats - they take a different approach to potholes and bar charts I suspect.
So what's your prospect for relations with Russia post-Putin - are we going to have to maintain military forces in Poland, Latvia, Estonia and the like for ever?
Dunno. I lived in Russia for 9 years and understood it less when I left than the day I arrived.
The Currant Bun provides an un-paywalled account of the saga, including such details as Warburton is an organist (insert your own predictive text jokes)
No, but other societies and times have done so. It is clearly not so in contemporary Britain. I use it as an example of a society changing, and being more accepting of social deviance.
OK, thanks for clarifying. So mental illness by this definition is essentially anything that would not be considered "the norm" by wider society?
I read it as you did, and thought Foxy sounded – well – erm, a bit crackers. Mental illness is surely what it says it is: a malfunctioning of normal brain function. The views of any particular society would – it seems to me – be irrelevant to this.
Just because some societies (bafflingly, wrongly) consider homosexuality and atheism wrong, doesn't make homosexuality and atheism an illness of any kind.
You could better argue that the societies themselves were sick for preaching against such freedom of thought and sexuality.
I think that's where I was going with my thought process too.
If atheism isn't a mental illness today, why would it be a mental illness in ye olde less enlightened times, unless any thought that differed from the accepted societal norm was deemed to be an illness?
A contrary view, yes, and one not accepted by society as a whole, sure, but a "mental illness"? I'm not sure that's a definition I'd apply.
Homosexuality is maybe the better example. That was widely classed as a mental illness until relatively recently.
It may have been classed as one, but it definitively was not one. Foxy seems to be suggesting calling something a mental illness makes it a mental illness. Not so.
I'd suggest that if a society defines something as a mental illness it is to all intents and purposes a mental illness at that time, regardless of how we enlightened fellows perceive it now. To reheat a mildly warm potato, to say witchcraft (or even being accused of such) was judged a capital crime in the C17th and worthy of a horrible, painful death is a fact, not a judgment on the correctness of it.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
I don't see any feasible route to this. There are no Russian LibDems waiting in the wings to take over and starting fixing potholes and doing bar charts.
On this, I agree with you. Unfortunately, the brainwashed Russian people seem to be foursquare behind Putin and his New Patriotic War, and all the active dissident elements - mainly the net-savvy young - have either fled already, or been silenced by brutal repression
The only hope is a palace coup, but as the elite are all implicated that seems unlikely.
That leaves three more likely outcomes. 1. Russian is so heavily defeated we can actually enforce regime change as the people DO turn against him as they starve to death. 2. A terrible “peace” which leaves Russian with a sort of victory which is then followed by many years of Cold War. 3. A total all out west-v-Russia/China war which probably destroys half of human life.
I'm far from convinced by all those commentators who forecast a rapprochement between Russia and China following the Ukraine misadventure. Unlike America, China really does fancy a bit of Russian real estate.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
I don't see any feasible route to this. There are no Russian LibDems waiting in the wings to take over and starting fixing potholes and doing bar charts.
I think what can be feasibly hoped for is for a Putin ally to take over, and do a passable impression of a new broom. This would give an opportunity to promote a rapprochement. Could be Lavrov, or Zakharova would look better.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
I don't see any feasible route to this. There are no Russian LibDems waiting in the wings to take over and starting fixing potholes and doing bar charts.
On this, I agree with you. Unfortunately, the brainwashed Russian people seem to be foursquare behind Putin and his New Patriotic War, and all the active dissident elements - mainly the net-savvy young - have either fled already, or been silenced by brutal repression
The only hope is a palace coup, but as the elite are all implicated that seems unlikely.
That leaves three more likely outcomes. 1. Russian is so heavily defeated we can actually enforce regime change as the people DO turn against him as they starve to death. 2. A terrible “peace” which leaves Russian with a sort of victory which is then followed by many years of Cold War. 3. A total all out west-v-Russia/China war which probably destroys half of human life.
Sometimes, a benevolent, stable dictatorship is what a political situation screams for. I fear Russia has reached that point. But good luck finding a benevolent dictator who both is effective/successful in turning Russia into a liberal democracy and stays benevolent during the decade or two that it will take.
A consensus has been built in the US / Europe to provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry like NLAWs. Let's build a new consensus in favour or providing offensive weaponry. We can start with the US/UK/Poland/Baltic's and progress from there.
And if there is anytime to turn off the gas, the start of Spring is the time to do it.
Let's ensure Russia is defeated.
Yes and no. Happy to see the back of Putin and his disgusting band of thugs but there will still be a Russia after all is over and what we must try out utmost to avoid is a revanchist Russia which sits isolated, distrustful and vengeful of the West and gets ever closer to China.
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
The de-programming of the Russian people will take time but it's a huge part of this process and we need to see so/me sense of the strategic post-war vision for Euro-Russian and NATO-Russian relations.
Difficult but not to be discounted imo. If we're lucky enough to get a 2nd chance to push a weakened Russia towards shared prosperity and genuine democracy we should take it. I'm not quite buying this grand global binary struggle between democracies and autocracies idea. There's something in it, I can see that, esp with the China angle on top of this Russia regression, but it feels a bit of a manufactured mantra to me, tending to the received wisdom box. People are saying it as if it's obvious. I don't think it is that obvious.
No, but other societies and times have done so. It is clearly not so in contemporary Britain. I use it as an example of a society changing, and being more accepting of social deviance.
OK, thanks for clarifying. So mental illness by this definition is essentially anything that would not be considered "the norm" by wider society?
I read it as you did, and thought Foxy sounded – well – erm, a bit crackers. Mental illness is surely what it says it is: a malfunctioning of normal brain function. The views of any particular society would – it seems to me – be irrelevant to this.
Just because some societies (bafflingly, wrongly) consider homosexuality and atheism wrong, doesn't make homosexuality and atheism an illness of any kind.
You could better argue that the societies themselves were sick for preaching against such freedom of thought and sexuality.
I think that's where I was going with my thought process too.
If atheism isn't a mental illness today, why would it be a mental illness in ye olde less enlightened times, unless any thought that differed from the accepted societal norm was deemed to be an illness?
A contrary view, yes, and one not accepted by society as a whole, sure, but a "mental illness"? I'm not sure that's a definition I'd apply.
Homosexuality is maybe the better example. That was widely classed as a mental illness until relatively recently.
It may have been classed as one, but it definitively was not one. Foxy seems to be suggesting calling something a mental illness makes it a mental illness. Not so.
I'd suggest that if a society defines something as a mental illness it is to all intents and purposes a mental illness at that time, regardless of how we enlightened fellows perceive it now. To reheat a mildly warm potato, to say witchcraft (or even being accused of such) was judged a capital crime in the C17th and worthy of a horrible, painful death is a fact, not a judgment on the correctness of it.
Witchcraft is a practise. Atheism is a philosophical position. Neither can be classified as a mental illness really. Homosexuality is an inclination on a deeper level. It's understandable that it was once classified as a mental disorder because it prevented the subject from fulfilling a biological destiny that was considered very important to human survival. It is rightly no longer considered as such because being baby machines is no longer a priority for all.
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
I've read some bonkers shit over the course of World War Z but this is a new perigee.
The British "Tranche 1" Typhoons are at Software Block 5. A tranche is a commercial structure; it's the block which defines capability. The RAF forked the software at B5 (Change Request 193) to get austere A2G capability ahead of the other partner nations which didn't care about it. This was to enable the beautiful dream of a Typhoon to Afghanistan deployment that never happened. Instead we got the Herrick Tornado detachment which cost a million quid a week for seven years.
So we had 53 aircraft that have no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch. The RAF lack the expertise, will and money to support the B5 software so the aircraft are obsolete which is why they are in the "reduce to produce" process. ie scrapped for parts.
These aircraft would be of significant net negative value to the Polish Air Force as they are colossally expensive to operate and can employ none of their existing weapons. They are also functionally inferior to the F-16s they already have and the F-35As they have on order.
Thanks for the info.
"no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch"
As someone who worked at the hardware/software level, what are the constraining factors to moving back onto the software branch? Is the hardware actually very different, and if so, it is it modularised?
I don't know exactly but it definitely needs new hardware and (I think) a structural change in a forward fuselage cross member to accommodate it. Then you've got to recertify the whole thing for flight, weapons release, etc. The Prime Minister will be one of Johnson's as yet unborn future bastards by the time all that happened.
That doesn't sound massive. I'll bet you any money: if it decides it has to be done (tm), it will be done in a matter of weeks. If that.
(And yes, IANAE, IMBBAA, etc, etc)
Nah, if they're moving from an ASIC to a generalised CPU in a combat setting the recertification process will be huge. The ASIC timings will have been built into the software specifications. The room for error in emulating the ASIC instructions and timings will be nil, which will require extensive testing.
There are a lot of assumptions in that. It'd be great to know exactly what the problem are - and we probably never will for (secrecy) reasons.
First that it would be an entirely pointless project. No one wants to take on the enormous support costs - or indeed spend years training pilots - on a lot of aircraft incompatible with what they already have, and which will be unplayable scrap within a decade.
Particularly when there’s a more capable system widely available, and far more widely deployed worldwide, which carries the certainty of an upgrade route, and potential for later on sale. (The F16)
No-one was suggesting giving Eurofighters to Ukraine. The idea was to do a swapsy: EF to Poland, so Poland can give their MIG-29s to Ukraine. Still probably unworkable for a host of reasons, but orders of magnitude easier than giving EFs to them.
Whilst Poland went with the F35 rather than EF, they have experience of they type due to it being based in Poland.
I think it unlikely the government will u-turn on free tests, if only because limiting testing will itself dramatically reduce the official numbers of cases and that will reduce the political effect of rising infections.
Well ... will it though?
That might have worked a century ago but nowadays with media awareness? It's not just anecdotal, but problems in industries like travel where infections are causing chaos (Dover, Heathrow) as well as schools and NHS trusts. My son's school had to shut the whole of last week because there was so much covid - they ran out of teachers. The scientists may get ridiculed but studies like ZOE, which the Gov't have pulled the plug on, are still reporting and they have a current daily infection estimate at 337,000. https://covid.joinzoe.com/
I think it's an incredibly dangerous political route to go down to think you can pull the wool over people's eyes and, effectively, gag the news. It smacks to me of the last vestiges of a party losing power, not to mention being rather Putinesque.
The right-wingers (I know it annoys people if I call them Far Right) are so hell-bent on pretending this thing has gone away that they've lost all sense of proportion and perspective.
The issue will always be capacity in the health care system. If things get bad in this respect, then the restrictions will come back. This is what a majority of people will accept.
I don't know about the "chaos" you describe - is it the disease that is causing chaos, or the requirement to test and isolate?
Also: the situation in Ukraine puts Covid in to context. The world doesn't stop turning and cannot be put on hold because of Covid.
Good morning
Why anyone takes @Heathener seriously I do not know
Because she often has interesting opinions, as do you, and PB is least interesting when we spend time slagging off other contributors, and focus instead on what they're saying. The mass assault on HYUFD on the last thread was excessive too - fine to deride his opinions, but I don't think we should spend time trying to label him.
It's possible that some contributors deliberately try to wind us up (not a novel phenomenon, cf. SeanT, malcolmg). A good response to that is not to be wound up.
Posters that burst peoples carefully constructed comfort bubbles are essential to PB. If you find yourself thinking poster X sounds weird, it might be a good opportunity to question yourself.
I am not sure many of us need to question ourselves about whether it is a bad idea to beat up grannies, use tanks against people for daring to want a vote, and advocate first use of nukes against Argentina.
HYUFD wants to be an elected representative. I would suggest it is incumbent upon all those who think he is dangerously unsuited for any form of elected office to ensure views are widely known so voters are not fooled into supporting him.
He already is an elected representative, bless him.
I did some googling the other day, I think I’ve identified him from the Epping Council website, pretty easy to do based on the personal snippets he’s dropped here. I should get out more.
I did ponder letting the local Labour Party know so they could read his postings. But I thought that would be a bit shitty.
You'd probably be better off, if you want to cause him problems, letting the local LibDems know.
If people start posting and leaking what people posted on here in a private forum then that also opens the way for others to start transferring details to employers, political opponents etc as many have identified themselves on here and made posts they might regret.
However I have not posted anything on here I am particularly ashamed of and not anything on the whole most Epping Forest Conservative voters would not agree with
I agree. Doxxing is deplorable. It recently drove @Charles off the site. While I didn't like his views, he was an interesting insight into an older noblese oblige style of Toryism, albeit one that used a cultivated veneer to mask its beastliness.
NOT BLOODY TRUE
Charles bloody linked to an obituary for someone he said was his Dad, how do you dox someone who has already done that to themselves? I just got fed up and pointed out that the genuinely posh and rich don't go on and on and on about it on internet forums, and to close off the likely retort that I just thought that because I don't know any of them, I pointed out, truthfully, that I know some of his cousins, and you could know them for years without them going out of their way to tell you Who They Are.
Not doxxing.
Yes, everyone knows who @Charles is. The issue aiui was naming an uncle, which was a bit off, even if anyone could have worked it out for themselves. It is a shame @Charles has gone, with his expert knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry and, although not to everyone's taste, anecdotes about his ancestors but there it is.
I always got the impression that Charles was a combination of mildly embarrassed and tongue in cheek about his ancestry. He could have remained silent, but then, it was a part of who he was he could nothing about.
I miss him and if he lurks, very much hope he makes a reappearance. The site is poorer for his departure.
Hundreds of millions poorer, probably.... 😉
I have no idea who Charles is! I always assumed he was a comic creation, nobody could be that posh in real life. The site is certainly poorer in his absence.
Classic 'nice but dim' posho. I'd welcome him back.
There was nothing remotely dim about @Charles. Not in real life anyway.
"The police seem to think that because theirs is a critical public function everything they do is in the public interest and therefore it is impermissible to attack them. It is a “L’etat c’est moi” approach which does much to explain the defensive, “no true policeman” approach adopted in response to every scandal, an approach which appears to value protecting the police’s reputation above anything else."
Substitute "police" for pretty much any other "service" and you get the same outcome.
No, but other societies and times have done so. It is clearly not so in contemporary Britain. I use it as an example of a society changing, and being more accepting of social deviance.
OK, thanks for clarifying. So mental illness by this definition is essentially anything that would not be considered "the norm" by wider society?
I read it as you did, and thought Foxy sounded – well – erm, a bit crackers. Mental illness is surely what it says it is: a malfunctioning of normal brain function. The views of any particular society would – it seems to me – be irrelevant to this.
Just because some societies (bafflingly, wrongly) consider homosexuality and atheism wrong, doesn't make homosexuality and atheism an illness of any kind.
You could better argue that the societies themselves were sick for preaching against such freedom of thought and sexuality.
I think that's where I was going with my thought process too.
If atheism isn't a mental illness today, why would it be a mental illness in ye olde less enlightened times, unless any thought that differed from the accepted societal norm was deemed to be an illness?
A contrary view, yes, and one not accepted by society as a whole, sure, but a "mental illness"? I'm not sure that's a definition I'd apply.
Homosexuality is maybe the better example. That was widely classed as a mental illness until relatively recently.
It may have been classed as one, but it definitively was not one. Foxy seems to be suggesting calling something a mental illness makes it a mental illness. Not so.
No, what I am saying is that mental illness has always been about how society deals with difficult people. What societies find difficult varies with time and place. There is no reason to believe that our current society has it right.
The US and unnamed countries (Poland) are said to be prepping a transfer of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. I think it's also time for us to lend Poland the money to buy our tranche 1 Typhoons (which are being taken out of service in 2025, but could have their operational life extended for an extra 10 years) so they can give Ukraine their old MiGs.
I've read some bonkers shit over the course of World War Z but this is a new perigee.
The British "Tranche 1" Typhoons are at Software Block 5. A tranche is a commercial structure; it's the block which defines capability. The RAF forked the software at B5 (Change Request 193) to get austere A2G capability ahead of the other partner nations which didn't care about it. This was to enable the beautiful dream of a Typhoon to Afghanistan deployment that never happened. Instead we got the Herrick Tornado detachment which cost a million quid a week for seven years.
So we had 53 aircraft that have no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch. The RAF lack the expertise, will and money to support the B5 software so the aircraft are obsolete which is why they are in the "reduce to produce" process. ie scrapped for parts.
These aircraft would be of significant net negative value to the Polish Air Force as they are colossally expensive to operate and can employ none of their existing weapons. They are also functionally inferior to the F-16s they already have and the F-35As they have on order.
Thanks for the info.
"no feasible upgrade route back into the main software branch"
As someone who worked at the hardware/software level, what are the constraining factors to moving back onto the software branch? Is the hardware actually very different, and if so, it is it modularised?
I don't know exactly but it definitely needs new hardware and (I think) a structural change in a forward fuselage cross member to accommodate it. Then you've got to recertify the whole thing for flight, weapons release, etc. The Prime Minister will be one of Johnson's as yet unborn future bastards by the time all that happened.
That doesn't sound massive. I'll bet you any money: if it decides it has to be done (tm), it will be done in a matter of weeks. If that.
(And yes, IANAE, IMBBAA, etc, etc)
Nah, if they're moving from an ASIC to a generalised CPU in a combat setting the recertification process will be huge. The ASIC timings will have been built into the software specifications. The room for error in emulating the ASIC instructions and timings will be nil, which will require extensive testing.
There are a lot of assumptions in that. It'd be great to know exactly what the problem are - and we probably never will for (secrecy) reasons.
First that it would be an entirely pointless project. No one wants to take on the enormous support costs - or indeed spend years training pilots - on a lot of aircraft incompatible with what they already have, and which will be unplayable scrap within a decade.
Particularly when there’s a more capable system widely available, and far more widely deployed worldwide, which carries the certainty of an upgrade route, and potential for later on sale. (The F16)
No-one was suggesting giving Eurofighters to Ukraine. The idea was to do a swapsy: EF to Poland, so Poland can give their MIG-29s to Ukraine. Still probably unworkable for a host of reasons, but orders of magnitude easier than giving EFs to them.
Whilst Poland went with the F35 rather than EF, they have experience of they type due to it being based in Poland.
I think Typhoons to Poland are a non-starter. They use American kit, and won't want another aircraft type that they have to learn and set up logistics / maintenance for from scratch. And as it is full of Fr / De components I think one of those two would have potential influence on a deal if were part of an indirect supply to Ukr of MIGs.
For Poland, they would perhaps be better off with F16s, which they already use, and I think the ones they have are due for retirement by the USAF, Kuwait and others soon. USAF are upgrading theirs I think. They are also less than half the cost of a Typhoon to run.
I'm no expert on Typhoon, but I think the Tranche 1s we have are 25-30 years old, and the upgrade cost is perhaps £15-18m a pop, and we have 40 or so (?). Spain is upgrading, but theirs are under 20 years old. Our better project would be an extra 6-8 new F-35s, and/or some of the Electronic Warfare Typhoons just ordered by Germany.
Comments
A consensus has been built in the US / Europe to provide Ukraine with defensive weaponry like NLAWs. Let's build a new consensus in favour or providing offensive weaponry. We can start with the US/UK/Poland/Baltic's and progress from there.
And if there is anytime to turn off the gas, the start of Spring is the time to do it.
Let's ensure Russia is defeated.
Using Coal, oil and gas imported form Russia instead of Produced in the UK has never and would never reduces carbon output, (if anything when you add the Carbon emitted in transportation, it might be slightly less carbon by getting it out the ground here)
If we what to reduces the CO2 emitted in the UK we could/should just introduce a tax on CO2 emitted, start it small, very small, but with a large rise, announces the rates and timescale of that rise, at the start, even if mostly it does not kick in for many years. and youse some/most of the money razed to boost peoples income (benefits) and cut tax for Companies and individuals.
This would provide all the right incentives to develop and use CO2-reducing technology and allocate large amounts of capital to reducing CO2 emotions, while keeping living standards high and a good biasness environment.
If atheism isn't a mental illness today, why would it be a mental illness in ye olde less enlightened times, unless any thought that differed from the accepted societal norm was deemed to be an illness?
A contrary view, yes, and one not accepted by society as a whole, sure, but a "mental illness"? I'm not sure that's a definition I'd apply.
Ever since I have taken his air of military confidence, and subsequent military wisdom, with a large pinch of fleur de sel
Quite understand if you do not wish to engage in this discussion.
The best things for Ukrainians to get are things that require little training or maintenance to use, or which replicate the training and maintenance they already have.
It's a couple of years too late to think about arming them with anything more than a limited number of western offensive complex weapons.
But there's still lots we can probably do within those bounds.
That was 25 years ago...
German man arrested after getting vaccinated against coronavirus at least 87 times to sell proof of vaccination to anti-vaxxers - FP
There is an opportunity with the removal of Putin and his gang to help evolve a new more outward-looking and broadly pro-western Russia. That requires magnanimity in spades on both sides and huge amounts of goodwill but the long term strategic benefits of a Russia closer to the West than China are unmistakeable.
The de-programming of the Russian people will take time but it's a huge part of this process and we need to see so/me sense of the strategic post-war vision for Euro-Russian and NATO-Russian relations.
Keep the carbon tax low so that business does not suffer and it is cheaper to carry on emitting than to decarbonise.
Ratchet up the carbon tax and business either goes bust or relocates to a low carbon tax jurisdiction. 'Carbon leakage.'
The ETS provides a stick. Governments also have to provide a carrot. Tax breaks, contracts for difference, grant funding, etc to facilitate the transition.
No one wants to take on the enormous support costs - or indeed spend years training pilots - on a lot of aircraft incompatible with what they already have, and which will be unplayable scrap within a decade.
Particularly when there’s a more capable system widely available, and far more widely deployed worldwide, which carries the certainty of an upgrade route, and potential for later on sale. (The F16)
CONSERVATIVE MP David Warburton allegedly snorted "line after line" of cocaine before stripping naked and groping a woman’s breasts in her flat.
The married backbencher, 56, has had the whip withdrawn after a string of claims were made to the parliamentary harassment watchdog.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18146881/conservative-mp-david-warburton-suspended-investigation-sexual-harassment-drug/
The Currant Bun provides an un-paywalled account of the saga, including such details as Warburton is an organist (insert your own predictive text jokes) and that two parliamentary aides complained, and that:-
Last night The Sunday Times published a damning picture of him sitting at a table with lines of cocaine on a baking tray.
The controversy sent shockwaves across Westminster after the paper reported that Warburton said he would repay £160 to the woman for ordering the Class A drug for him.
I love the Sun's implication that the shocking part is Warburton's offer to pay!
There’s no good case for it.
But I reported him to the Sunday Times, complete with photos and texts....Bit odd for somebody who wants to forget about it.
The trick is how to get from here to there. My guess it will take a generation or more. We had a chance in the 90s and we (Russia and the West collectively) blew it. I think Putin carries the bulk of the blame for that, but Western triumphalism played its part.
First line of this song -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojnv3fegkfM
As someone who believes in liberal capitalism, do you not see the inherent benefit to all sides of moving Russia away from the kleptocrat economy of the post-Communist era toward something more recognisable as the European economic model and if so how do we achieve that?
https://twitter.com/ESPNUK/status/1510591411854401537?s=20&t=kZxU4rhZ7xWRyOyYg6yHcw
The only hope is a palace coup, but as the elite are all implicated that seems unlikely.
That leaves three more likely outcomes. 1. Russian is so heavily defeated we can actually enforce regime change as the people DO turn against him as they starve to death. 2. A terrible “peace” which leaves Russian with a sort of victory which is then followed by many years of Cold War. 3. A total all out west-v-Russia/China war which probably destroys half of human life.
So what's your prospect for relations with Russia post-Putin - are we going to have to maintain military forces in Poland, Latvia, Estonia and the like for ever?
I would also like to see more outreach to the Russian people. Such as visas for those who stand against Putin. And an open door to rejoin Europe if Putin and co are replaced and the new leaders recognise the atrocities committed.
NEW THREAD
Whilst Poland went with the F35 rather than EF, they have experience of they type due to it being based in Poland.
I summarised it here - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/10/01/what-now/ - last October.
"The police seem to think that because theirs is a critical public function everything they do is in the public interest and therefore it is impermissible to attack them. It is a “L’etat c’est moi” approach which does much to explain the defensive, “no true policeman” approach adopted in response to every scandal, an approach which appears to value protecting the police’s reputation above anything else."
Substitute "police" for pretty much any other "service" and you get the same outcome.
For Poland, they would perhaps be better off with F16s, which they already use, and I think the ones they have are due for retirement by the USAF, Kuwait and others soon. USAF are upgrading theirs I think. They are also less than half the cost of a Typhoon to run.
I'm no expert on Typhoon, but I think the Tranche 1s we have are 25-30 years old, and the upgrade cost is perhaps £15-18m a pop, and we have 40 or so (?). Spain is upgrading, but theirs are under 20 years old. Our better project would be an extra 6-8 new F-35s, and/or some of the Electronic Warfare Typhoons just ordered by Germany.
This is an interesting little piece arguing that the West should start very publicly working with Ukr to get them in 2-3 years a 4th gen fighter capability to put down a marker for the Russians.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/45018/just-pick-a-fighter-to-start-training-ukrainian-pilots-on-now