Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

DeSantis edges Trump out to become new WH2024 favourite – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 3 in General
imageDeSantis edges Trump out to become new WH2024 favourite – politicalbetting.com

There has been a big move in the betting on who will win the 2024 White House race. The controversial Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has now become the favourite pushing out Trump.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,278
    Test
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,270
    Second like Grant Shapps...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    Betfair has Trump just-about favourite still.

    Election winner:-
    Trump 4.6
    De Santis 4.7
    Biden 7.2
    Harris 17
    Pence 19

    Republican Nominee:-
    Trump 2.5
    De Santis 2.98
    Pence 12
    Haley 19.5
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582

    Betfair has Trump just-about favourite still.

    Election winner:-
    Trump 4.6
    De Santis 4.7
    Biden 7.2
    Harris 17
    Pence 19

    Republican Nominee:-
    Trump 2.5
    De Santis 2.98
    Pence 12
    Haley 19.5

    The other story is that Nikki Haley has drifted from third favourite for the GOP nomination in the past couple of weeks.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    Michael Gove is a one-man economic catastrophe
    Levelling Up Secretary is the driving force behind a whole series of terrible policy mistakes

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/27/michael-gove-one-man-economic-catastrophe/ (£££)

    M&S Oxford Street, landlords and fracking, apparently.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    edited June 28
    Freeview users to lose nine channels this week as part of major signal switch off
    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/freeview-users-to-lose-nine-channels-this-week-as-part-of-major-signal-switch-off/325605

    GB News has just noticed that some channels will disappear this week as frequencies are lost to 5G.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    edited June 28
    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,103
    The flavours of pre-war Ukraine.

    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-06-26/ukraine-russian-invasion-history-family-recipes-stuffed-chicken-necks
    … The recipes have taken on a new meaning since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I now keep the notebook near me, rereading the words of my grandmother who was born in Vinnytsia, Ukraine, and lived through Stalin’s Holodomor genocide in the 1930s, followed by the Holocaust.

    Sometimes I browse for meal ideas, like her recipe for chopped liver or vareniky (Ukrainian dumplings) or pickled cabbage and cucumbers, a staple of Jewish shtetl life in Eastern Europe. Other times I stare at her teacher’s shorthand, seeking comfort in its neatness, or anxiously search for random things — a Yiddish word, for instance, amid the Russian, or the handwritten table of contents with a squiggly 7 — just to make sure they’re still there.

    I keep returning to her recipe for “stuffed chicken necks,” a poor man’s delicacy that often has no neck in it whatsoever. It’s a craft project: Skin the chicken, make a pouch out of the skin, then stuff it with a mixture of fried onions, chicken fat, flour (or farina) and, if you’re lucky, giblets.

    “Chicken necks” is a festive and scrappy dish, having sustained Ashkenazi Jewish families for generations, even extolled by Yiddish author Sholem Aleichem in his 1902 short story “Geese.” Nothing, not even the bird’s skin or stomach, should go to waste. “Sew them up,” my grandmother writes. Then boil, slice and serve…

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,055

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,055

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    The last place one might expect to see cocaine in the crowd, at a Test Match. Even with England’s run rate, it’s supposed to be a relaxing day out, with a book or a newspaper, a few beers and friends.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,533
    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    It would be hilarious if one of those things came off and ended up somewhere on the court. Can you imagine the worry? That assumes she is actually wearing the real stuff.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    Indeed. Though I had wondered about Raducanu's earrings during the match yesterday. According to the Sun, her racket is not her racket:-

    ... Raducanu using a Wilson racket and earning about £100,000 doing so. But although she appears to use the “copper green” Blade V8, the Brit actually plays with a Wilson Steam 100, a discontinued model which gets spray painted to look like the Blade.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/18687303/emma-raducanu-sponsors-dior-porsche/

    You hear similar stories about footballers and their boots.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 10,373
    Voting intention - Ireland
    (+- change from GE)

    Sinn Féin 36% (+11)
    Fine Gael 19% (-2)
    Fianna Fáil 14% (-8)
    Greens 4% (-3)
    People Before Profit/Solidarity 4% (+1)
    Social Democrats 4% (+1)
    Aontú 3% (+1)
    Labour 3% (-1)
    oth 12% (-2)

    (Red C/Sunday Business Post; 25 June)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    It would be hilarious if one of those things came off and ended up somewhere on the court. Can you imagine the worry? That assumes she is actually wearing the real stuff.
    Well, she did lose her Airpods while winning the US Open last year. Do earrings fall off? It's more likely she loses them in the changing room, unless there is a Tiffany's rep to take them back as soon as she gets off court. I'd have thought it would be distracting to have pearls bouncing off her earlobes as she runs round the court but there again, I've never tried it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,055

    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    Indeed. Though I had wondered about Raducanu's earrings during the match yesterday. According to the Sun, her racket is not her racket:-

    ... Raducanu using a Wilson racket and earning about £100,000 doing so. But although she appears to use the “copper green” Blade V8, the Brit actually plays with a Wilson Steam 100, a discontinued model which gets spray painted to look like the Blade.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/18687303/emma-raducanu-sponsors-dior-porsche/

    You hear similar stories about footballers and their boots.
    There’s also a few good stories in golf, about professionals who just couldn’t get on with their sponsor’s equipment and go back to what they were using previously - but carefully dressed up so the cameras don’t notice.

    The sponsors don’t’ really care what clubs the pro actually uses, as long as the rest of us think it’s the sponsor’s product.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,865
    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,425
    Emma played well yesterday.

    Let's leave the misogyny off here.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,495
    Anything that suggests the US is moving away from bat-shit crazy is to be welcomed.

    Personally, would love to never hear of any of Trumps friends and family ever again.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    Heathener said:

    Emma played well yesterday.

    Let's leave the misogyny off here.

    Care to point it out?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    Heathener said:

    Emma played well yesterday.

    Let's leave the misogyny off here.

    What misogyny? We are discussing sponsorship.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,830
    I think that Biden is underpriced here, as he is the incumbent.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,744
    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,744
    Sandpit said:

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    The last place one might expect to see cocaine in the crowd, at a Test Match. Even with England’s run rate, it’s supposed to be a relaxing day out, with a book or a newspaper, a few beers and friends.
    It does help you stay awake though.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    pigeon said:

    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?

    There is a shortage of doctors so the classic market approach might be to pay more, whether it compensates for inflation and previous cuts or not. In any case, the claim appears to be 30 per cent over five years which leaves plenty of room for fudge.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,935
    Strikes me as the new Marco Rubio
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,055
    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,008
    Surely the viabilty of DeathSentence is proven if he wins the Florida gubnetorial without the imprimatur of DJT? At that point the GOP calculation must be that the economy is fucked, Biden's brain is a piece of a shit and RDS has proved he can win without a Trump endorsement so he's got to be the guy...

    It must be attractive to them because he brings a lot of the things they like about Trump (corporate welfare, social conservatism and frank disregard for environmental issues) without all of the mental Trump baggage.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,447
    Dura_Ace said:

    Surely the viabilty of DeathSentence is proven if he wins the Florida gubnetorial without the imprimatur of DJT? At that point the GOP calculation must be that the economy is fucked, Biden's brain is a piece of a shit and RDS has proved he can win without a Trump endorsement so he's got to be the guy...

    It must be attractive to them because he brings a lot of the things they like about Trump (corporate welfare, social conservatism and frank disregard for environmental issues) without all of the mental Trump baggage.

    Give him time...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,447

    Second like Grant Shapps...

    Please, no! Second from bottom would be more like it.

    The only minister more openly dishonest and incompetent than Johnson himself.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,493

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    It would be hilarious if one of those things came off and ended up somewhere on the court. Can you imagine the worry? That assumes she is actually wearing the real stuff.
    Well, she did lose her Airpods while winning the US Open last year. Do earrings fall off? It's more likely she loses them in the changing room, unless there is a Tiffany's rep to take them back as soon as she gets off court. I'd have thought it would be distracting to have pearls bouncing off her earlobes as she runs round the court but there again, I've never tried it.
    You should try tennis. Good exercise…
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,447

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    It would be hilarious if one of those things came off and ended up somewhere on the court. Can you imagine the worry? That assumes she is actually wearing the real stuff.
    Well, she did lose her Airpods while winning the US Open last year. Do earrings fall off? It's more likely she loses them in the changing room, unless there is a Tiffany's rep to take them back as soon as she gets off court. I'd have thought it would be distracting to have pearls bouncing off her earlobes as she runs round the court but there again, I've never tried it.
    You should try tennis. Good exercise…
    I'm always wary of tennis. From the outside, it looks like a load of balls and a complete racket.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,708
    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,571
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    It would be hilarious if one of those things came off and ended up somewhere on the court. Can you imagine the worry? That assumes she is actually wearing the real stuff.
    Well, she did lose her Airpods while winning the US Open last year. Do earrings fall off? It's more likely she loses them in the changing room, unless there is a Tiffany's rep to take them back as soon as she gets off court. I'd have thought it would be distracting to have pearls bouncing off her earlobes as she runs round the court but there again, I've never tried it.
    You should try tennis. Good exercise…
    I'm always wary of tennis. From the outside, it looks like a load of balls and a complete racket.
    Careful. Some people might want to see you in court for that remark.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,999
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    It would be hilarious if one of those things came off and ended up somewhere on the court. Can you imagine the worry? That assumes she is actually wearing the real stuff.
    Well, she did lose her Airpods while winning the US Open last year. Do earrings fall off? It's more likely she loses them in the changing room, unless there is a Tiffany's rep to take them back as soon as she gets off court. I'd have thought it would be distracting to have pearls bouncing off her earlobes as she runs round the court but there again, I've never tried it.
    You should try tennis. Good exercise…
    I'm always wary of tennis. From the outside, it looks like a load of balls and a complete racket.
    Good morning everybody! Another bright and sunny one here.
    I never thought a great deal of tennis until Mrs C & I were given tickets for the first day at Wimbledon and I was really impressed by the amount of effort that the players had to put into it!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,322
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,447
    edited June 28
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    It would be hilarious if one of those things came off and ended up somewhere on the court. Can you imagine the worry? That assumes she is actually wearing the real stuff.
    Well, she did lose her Airpods while winning the US Open last year. Do earrings fall off? It's more likely she loses them in the changing room, unless there is a Tiffany's rep to take them back as soon as she gets off court. I'd have thought it would be distracting to have pearls bouncing off her earlobes as she runs round the court but there again, I've never tried it.
    You should try tennis. Good exercise…
    I'm always wary of tennis. From the outside, it looks like a load of balls and a complete racket.
    Careful. Some people might want to see you in court for that remark.
    Are you suggesting I might have lett my tongue run away with me?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,055
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    Indeed so. I imagine that the plan is to station troops all the way along the NATO border with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine - including Finland if they ask - hence why so many troops have been mobilised.

    That’s going to be a substantial proportion of the land armies of Western Europe and the USA.

    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,571
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    It would be hilarious if one of those things came off and ended up somewhere on the court. Can you imagine the worry? That assumes she is actually wearing the real stuff.
    Well, she did lose her Airpods while winning the US Open last year. Do earrings fall off? It's more likely she loses them in the changing room, unless there is a Tiffany's rep to take them back as soon as she gets off court. I'd have thought it would be distracting to have pearls bouncing off her earlobes as she runs round the court but there again, I've never tried it.
    You should try tennis. Good exercise…
    I'm always wary of tennis. From the outside, it looks like a load of balls and a complete racket.
    Careful. Some people might want to see you in court for that remark.
    Are you suggesting I might have lett my tongue run away with me?
    I think so, love.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,103
    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    18 this morning, but they've barely started to clear the wreckage.
    But Russia has almost certainly killed tens of thousands of civilians as they level Ukrainian towns and cities. Who knows what the actual total is ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,571
    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    Indeed so. I imagine that the plan is to station troops all the way along the NATO border with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine - including Finland if they ask - hence why so many troops have been mobilised.

    That’s going to be a substantial proportion of the land armies of Western Europe and the USA.

    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.
    It all has a whiff of 1914 about it.

    Overseas deployment of that percentage of the armed forces is not sustainable for any duration.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306

    Michael Gove is a one-man economic catastrophe
    Levelling Up Secretary is the driving force behind a whole series of terrible policy mistakes

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/27/michael-gove-one-man-economic-catastrophe/ (£££)

    M&S Oxford Street, landlords and fracking, apparently.

    Sounds more like a pre-emptive strike against one candidate to be Mr Johnson's successor.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,571
    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?

    Neither the medical nor the teaching unions (who are also gearing up for trouble) are affiliated to Labour.

    To be quite honest, I doubt if strike action is going to have nearly the impact of people voting with their feet. Schools are suffering from absolutely appalling staff shortages, and the NHS doesn't sound much better. Not surprising given the enormous increases in workload, the appalling mismanagement from Whitehall and the derisory pay increases that show how much we as a nation really admire these professions. Which would you rather be as a doctor - stuck on the wards all day for a if not a pittance certainly not a wage that reflects your ability and the effort you put in, or doing a nice part time job in private practice? Not a hard decision, is it?

    Strikes sod things up for a few days. Literally running out of staff has an impact that is ongoing for months or even years.
    85% of the delegates at the BMA conference supported the pay claim. Conference is always a bit more activist, but no one is going to get a seat on the BMA Council without supporting a significant pay deal.

    I don't get a vote as I am in a different Union.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,103
    Carnyx said:

    Michael Gove is a one-man economic catastrophe
    Levelling Up Secretary is the driving force behind a whole series of terrible policy mistakes

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/27/michael-gove-one-man-economic-catastrophe/ (£££)

    M&S Oxford Street, landlords and fracking, apparently.

    Sounds more like a pre-emptive strike against one candidate to be Mr Johnson's successor.
    No doubt.
    And the Shapps nonsense intended to make Johnson look impressive in comparison.

    Though I'm not convinced about the latter point, given the number of us thinking even Grant Shapps might be a slight improvement...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,500
    What fresh hell awaits us today?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,055
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    Indeed so. I imagine that the plan is to station troops all the way along the NATO border with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine - including Finland if they ask - hence why so many troops have been mobilised.

    That’s going to be a substantial proportion of the land armies of Western Europe and the USA.

    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.
    It all has a whiff of 1914 about it.

    Overseas deployment of that percentage of the armed forces is not sustainable for any duration.
    Oh indeed. Even on exercises and readiness, you’d routinely rotate squadrons that weren’t actually in a war. One of our experts will know what proportion of the army are ever active.

    There’s also a lot of British soldiers already in Poland, training Ukranians on the kit we’ve donated to them.

    As you suggested yesterday, get making military equipment. Not orders for next-gen shiny stuff that’s a decade away, but lots more of what’s in production already.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,008
    edited June 28
    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,493
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dazzling Emma Raducanu dashes to victory in £35,000 of jewellery in Centre Court debut
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazzling-emma-raducanu-dashes-to-victory-in-35-000-of-jewellery-in-centre-court-debut-6jdwq0gr6 (£££)

    That is what has been missing from my game. Bling by Tiffany who sponsor Raducanu.

    Non-paywalled Mail:-
    Emma Raducanu, 19, stuns in a £4,000 necklace, £19,000 bracelet and £7,500 earrings from Tiffany for her Wimbledon opening match

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10957933/Emma-Raducanu-stuns-19-000-bracelet-4-000-necklace-earrings-worth-7-500-Tiffany.html

    Wimbledon bans most sponsor logos, so now we get press releases about *who* the sportswomen were wearing, like they’re actresses at the Oscars.
    It would be hilarious if one of those things came off and ended up somewhere on the court. Can you imagine the worry? That assumes she is actually wearing the real stuff.
    Well, she did lose her Airpods while winning the US Open last year. Do earrings fall off? It's more likely she loses them in the changing room, unless there is a Tiffany's rep to take them back as soon as she gets off court. I'd have thought it would be distracting to have pearls bouncing off her earlobes as she runs round the court but there again, I've never tried it.
    You should try tennis. Good exercise…
    I'm always wary of tennis. From the outside, it looks like a load of balls and a complete racket.
    Careful. Some people might want to see you in court for that remark.
    Are you suggesting I might have lett my tongue run away with me?
    I think so, love.
    That’s un oeuf
  • .

    Michael Gove is a one-man economic catastrophe
    Levelling Up Secretary is the driving force behind a whole series of terrible policy mistakes

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/27/michael-gove-one-man-economic-catastrophe/ (£££)

    M&S Oxford Street, landlords and fracking, apparently.

    Behind a paywall so can't read it, but if Gove manages to get the housing market sorted for people to have their own home rather than sweating other people's homes as an asset, then that would be a great thing.

    If you want to invest, invest in a business etc, not seeking rent off someone else's house.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,999
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    Does NATO's ( and our) high command's not realise that Putin knows this?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,055
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    So they’re not actually moving troops around? That wasn’t the impression given from media reports.

    If the UK Army can field only 5-6,000, and most European armies are the same, then half the total troops would be American, is that right?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,571
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,096
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
    Retired, like football clubs retiring the number of a beloved great player?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    edited June 28
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
    617 Squadron, you mean, I assume; 633 was a fictitious filmic one! It was given an out of sequence number as a special unit for the Dams Raid and then other special bombing attacks, but kept it because Raff PR reasons.

    82nd was, presumably, a consecutive number in the huge expansion of the US Army in tdhe Great War. I expect the number was kept on because it was a specialist unit (airborne); the 81st, however, still exists ...

    PS 700 and 800 series began as former Royal Naval Air Service squadrons which were given a 7 prefix when they merged with the RFC to form the Raff, I presume. Of course the brown, gradually changing to crab fat grey, jobs wouldn't dream of changing their own squadron numbers, so they kept No 1 onwards.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,880

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,008
    edited June 28
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    It's just tradition as some units have a heritage and indentity that the forces want to preserve. That's why the RAF has 8.5 fast jets squadron (one is 50% owned and operated that beacon of liberty and human rights - Qatar) that are numbered from 1 to 617.

    633 never existed...

    E2A... there used to be some rhyme and reason to it when the 200 squadrons where the ex NAS units and the 600s were RAuxAF, etc but now it's pretty much random and depends on who has the pull inside the MoD.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 79,096
    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,409
    Good morning, everyone.

    Dr. Foxy, the legions had bloody weird naming conventions too. Sometimes legions had the same name so they had to add on a bit, or numbers got missed out or never replaced, or names were down to the original place the legion was raised, or where it was sent, or where it won a victory, or if it proved faithful to an emperor.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    edited June 28
    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,874
    Interesting description of a venue in the 2nd line of this report

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-61961211
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306
    edited June 28

    Good morning, everyone.

    Dr. Foxy, the legions had bloody weird naming conventions too. Sometimes legions had the same name so they had to add on a bit, or numbers got missed out or never replaced, or names were down to the original place the legion was raised, or where it was sent, or where it won a victory, or if it proved faithful to an emperor.

    Didn't some end up with duplicate numbers? Or is that my imagination?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    edited June 28
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
    Some of it is disinformation from the Second World War, where our two airborne divisions were the first and sixth, in order to confuse the Nazis into thinking we had more soldiers floating about the place.

    The first and second digits in RAF squadrons were series numbers. Lower ones were probably ex-RFC or ex-RNAS squadrons when the RAF was formed at the end of the Great War. 3xx were foreign crews, such as Polish or Czech or from other parts of Nazi-conquered Europe. 633 Squadron was a film not part of the RAF, although the Polish-crewed 303 Squadron was real and did have a film made.

    There are lots of gaps now after post-war defence cuts and vandalism by Conservative governments.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,693

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    Why are the Ukranians expected to fight with one hand tied behind their backs? The Russians invaded their country yet they are expected to refrain from hitting targets in Russia. The materiel supplied to them is for defence purposes. But that will not bring the war to an end. Russia will just retreat behind its borders and have another go when it has regrouped.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 22,537

    Totally off topic, but who was the lockdown moth expert? Thought they might be interested in this. Over the past few days we've had several humming bird hawk moths on the verbena outside the kitchen window. Never seen anything like them before!


    Lovely photo - hard to capture.

    Whereabout in the country are you?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,322

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,008
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    So they’re not actually moving troops around? That wasn’t the impression given from media reports.

    If the UK Army can field only 5-6,000, and most European armies are the same, then half the total troops would be American, is that right?
    Who knows? There's no details, just that they are moving a large number of troops (not necessarily infantry or armour, they could be blanket stackers and cooks for all we know) to a higher state of readiness.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,456
    Watched a very good documentary on Netflix last night called Overturning Roe. Although clearly favourable to the right to abortion it had many of the main players speaking very openly about their campaign and the techniques used. It also showed a scene in the 2016 election where Trump, at the final debate, won over the evangelicals which gave him the edge to win. Worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
  • moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,693

    Totally off topic, but who was the lockdown moth expert? Thought they might be interested in this. Over the past few days we've had several humming bird hawk moths on the verbena outside the kitchen window. Never seen anything like them before!


    Lovely photo - hard to capture.

    Whereabout in the country are you?
    Must be a round pond or rose-bed on the right because the curved mowing lines.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306

    Totally off topic, but who was the lockdown moth expert? Thought they might be interested in this. Over the past few days we've had several humming bird hawk moths on the verbena outside the kitchen window. Never seen anything like them before!


    Lovely photo - hard to capture.

    Whereabout in the country are you?
    Really long proboscis extended to suck up the nectar in that photo, too.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,008
    edited June 28
    geoffw said:

    Why are the Ukranians expected to fight with one hand tied behind their backs?

    Because, if you judge them by deeds not words, then US does not want a comprehensive defeat of Russia that leads to nuclear escalation or destabilising the entire country causing a chaotic disintegration of the Russian Federation. They are content to just bleed Russia and then tell Ukraine when it's enough.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,693

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    Unprovoked?
    Takes turning the other cheek to a new level.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,409
    Mr. Carnyx, pretty sure that happened. Might've led to Gemina names (twin) and some become amalgamated.

    It was a lot of random mess, really.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,322

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    If you read what I wrote, I said "over Ukraine"

    If we were to force an attack towards Moscow, then yes, I expect that nuclear weapons would be used - and sadly, validly so. But Ukraine - including its pre-2014 borders - is *not* Russia.

    The US did not use nukes on Korea, Vietnam, GWI and GWII etc. The Russians did not use them in Afghanistan. Why? Aside from the literal and political fallout from their use, and their limited strategic benefits, those wars were not on their own territory. They were essentially offensive, not defensive, actions.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 22,537
    geoffw said:

    Totally off topic, but who was the lockdown moth expert? Thought they might be interested in this. Over the past few days we've had several humming bird hawk moths on the verbena outside the kitchen window. Never seen anything like them before!


    Lovely photo - hard to capture.

    Whereabout in the country are you?
    Must be a round pond or rose-bed on the right because the curved mowing lines.

    Geoff W Holmes is on the case! ;-)
  • DayTripperDayTripper Posts: 116

    Totally off topic, but who was the lockdown moth expert? Thought they might be interested in this. Over the past few days we've had several humming bird hawk moths on the verbena outside the kitchen window. Never seen anything like them before!


    Lovely photo - hard to capture.

    Whereabout in the country are you?
    Rural Suffolk, just north of Woodbridge.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,306

    Totally off topic, but who was the lockdown moth expert? Thought they might be interested in this. Over the past few days we've had several humming bird hawk moths on the verbena outside the kitchen window. Never seen anything like them before!


    Lovely photo - hard to capture.

    Whereabout in the country are you?
    Rural Suffolk, just north of Woodbridge.
    BTW the lepidopterist is, IIRC, @MarqueeMark .
  • DayTripperDayTripper Posts: 116
    geoffw said:

    Totally off topic, but who was the lockdown moth expert? Thought they might be interested in this. Over the past few days we've had several humming bird hawk moths on the verbena outside the kitchen window. Never seen anything like them before!


    Lovely photo - hard to capture.

    Whereabout in the country are you?
    Must be a round pond or rose-bed on the right because the curved mowing lines.

    An old farm pond, about 1/8 acre. Now a bit of a wildlife haven, especially for dragonflies. We had quite a few large carp in it last year as well, but they got cleaned out by otter(s) over the winter (and we didn't even have the benefit of seeing the otters)>
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,322
    Dura_Ace said:

    geoffw said:

    Why are the Ukranians expected to fight with one hand tied behind their backs?

    Because, if you judge them by deeds not words, then US does not want a comprehensive defeat of Russia that leads to nuclear escalation or destabilising the entire country causing a chaotic disintegration of the Russian Federation. They are content to just bleed Russia and then tell Ukraine when it's enough.
    Actually, I think everyone - including the US, Germany, France, us, Ukraine - except Russia, would be quite happy if Russia just called off the war and retreated back to (at least) the 2021 borders.

    It is in Russia's hands, not the US's. If Russia does not want 'bleeding dry', then it could stop it tomorrow.

    Russia is bleeding itself.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,168
    Three questions.

    1) I am way behind the curve in US politics. Does De Santis - plainly not a liberal lefty etc - share the same anti democratic/Germany 1930s tendencies as Trump?

    2) Are we reaching the point where it becomes obvious that the west/NATO will have to choose between (i) long bitter and possibly unwinnable indirect engagement with Russia and (ii) giving Russia a large chuck of what it wants?

    3) If the (ii) occurred would Boris want to be the PM holding the baby when that particular music stops?

    The west needs to reflect on Afghanistan.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,237
    Never seen a hummingbird moth in Britain. Quite common on the continent. Lovely things.

    I saw a hornet down the vineyard (Kent) last week. Not such a lovely thing.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,880
    edited June 28

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,362
    TimS said:

    Never seen a hummingbird moth in Britain. Quite common on the continent. Lovely things.

    I saw a hornet down the vineyard (Kent) last week. Not such a lovely thing.

    Are we playing 'things beginning with H'?
  • eekeek Posts: 21,058
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,322

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Read what I wrote. It is 'deterrent' from attack on your state (and if I recall correctly, in ye olden days, that included deterrent from Chemical and Biological attacks as well).

    Ukraine is not Russian. The separatists states are not Russian. Even Crimea is not Russian, whatever they think.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,008
    algarkirk said:

    Three questions.

    1) I am way behind the curve in US politics. Does De Santis - plainly not a liberal lefty etc - share the same anti democratic/Germany 1930s tendencies as Trump?

    At least better at hiding it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,459

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying nuclear weapons are literally irrelevant? Might as well be made of cardboard? Isn't that a bit dim?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,322
    IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying nuclear weapons are literally irrelevant? Might as well be made of cardboard? Isn't that a bit dim?
    Ha ha ha ha ha

    ;)
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,693

    geoffw said:

    Totally off topic, but who was the lockdown moth expert? Thought they might be interested in this. Over the past few days we've had several humming bird hawk moths on the verbena outside the kitchen window. Never seen anything like them before!


    Lovely photo - hard to capture.

    Whereabout in the country are you?
    Must be a round pond or rose-bed on the right because the curved mowing lines.

    An old farm pond, about 1/8 acre. Now a bit of a wildlife haven, especially for dragonflies. We had quite a few large carp in it last year as well, but they got cleaned out by otter(s) over the winter (and we didn't even have the benefit of seeing the otters)>
    Istr "wetter than an otter's pouch" featuring in discussions here a while ago. Whatever, the sight of an otter's bow wave across a still lake is memorable.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,322

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    I disagree. And I'd appreciate an answer to the question I posed, as it is rather important. To put it another way: if you think Putin will use nukes 'if he felt there was no alternative', why would he not use them over Estonia? Lithuania? Poland?

    If he's mad enough to use them over Ukraine, he'd use them over those countries, as he sees large parts of Eastern Europe as 'his' land.

    I've never said that the threat from nukes is not real, or that it should be dismissed. I think the danger is largely over for their use in Ukraine (Russia has got used to losing), and there's the point that if we let our fear of his nukes stop us doing what is right now, he'll just use that fear again to get more.
  • moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Its not ineffective, its preventing other nations from starting a war against Russia in Russian soil.

    Russia started the war, not the other way around. Striking back at an aggressor who started a war is perfectly legitimate.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,582
    Dura_Ace said:

    algarkirk said:

    Three questions.

    1) I am way behind the curve in US politics. Does De Santis - plainly not a liberal lefty etc - share the same anti democratic/Germany 1930s tendencies as Trump?

    At least better at hiding it.
    Not really. De Santis was elected as a Trump ally and is on the right of the Republican Party. He was a member of the (right wing) Freedom Caucus in Congress before he became Governor of Florida.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying nuclear weapons are literally irrelevant? Might as well be made of cardboard? Isn't that a bit dim?
    No, they're not irrelevant.

    There is a middle ground between "we should let another nuclear armed state use the threat of its nukes to seize whatever territory it wants" and "nukes are utterly irrelevant, lets invade Moscow unprovoked".
  • Dura_Ace said:

    geoffw said:

    Why are the Ukranians expected to fight with one hand tied behind their backs?

    Because, if you judge them by deeds not words, then US does not want a comprehensive defeat of Russia that leads to nuclear escalation or destabilising the entire country causing a chaotic disintegration of the Russian Federation. They are content to just bleed Russia and then tell Ukraine when it's enough.
    Nobody is causing any bleeding, other than Russia themselves.
This discussion has been closed.