Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
I get that Putinist traitors like yourself that want to see Putin's agenda ahead of our own don't get this, but the part of 'security' where we have for seventy years since WWII ensured that there are not major wars of aggression in Europe with countries seeking to rewrite borders wholesale by invading other nations.
We have benefited handsomely from having a relatively peaceful, developed, western world to live in. Maintaining that security, globally, is far more important than any insignificant in comparison sacrifices we might have to be making.
You have zero right to call me a traitor because I choose not to take the same attitude to two third countries, America and Russia, than you do. I am British, not 'Western', and I could far more meaningfully accuse you of being a traitor for actively encouraging a foreign power to exercise de facto sovereignty over our country.
As for invading, attacking, or otherwise destabilising other countries, the record on who has done this to whom, how frequently, and at what human and material cost, is quite clear. Russia isn't at the top of that particular league table.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
Problem with Hamilton is he didn't confine his objection to Bernie or Piquet, he also claimed people like Jackie Stewart deploys micro-aggressions and unconscious bias towards him (because Stewart has said he thinks Hamilton should retire because he is past his best and not in a competitive car).
Stewart exemplifies the problem in a way. He's been a hero for F1, but even if you count the time he ran a team, he has been out of the centre of the sport for decades. Many years ago he said that no driver that had driven over 100 races without a win would ever become champion. He was referring to Jenson Button, who won his first race after 113 attempts.
And three years later won the championship.
ISTR he's said similar stuff in the past, as if he still thinks there are only ten races in a season. The skills required by a driver are also very different nowadays, if only from the PR standpoint.
But I don't agree with Hamilton that they should be banned. Just that journalists and TV companies should understand that, whilst they were heroes in their day, the sport is very different nowadays, and ask whether their views hold much relevance.
That very different from the openly racist stuff Piquet said.
Stewart is like a lot of sports suffer from greats of the past thinking the game hasn't changed and their approach would work today. Holding in cricket, his take was basically just bowl quick that will do it, Boycott bat properly lad, football, the whole of the MOTD team (bar perhaps Jenas) talk absolute shite about modern football tactics, etc etc etc.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
When considering how people will vote in the next mid-terms, that is the key number.
Are you sure of that? Is it not the case that the electorate might be more sophisticated than that and vote in the mid terms based on issues other than the popularity of a President who they are not actually voting for?
I still hold that the recent SCOTUS rulings will have just as much, if not more, impact on the midterms than Biden's popularity.
Certainly, all the precedents point to Presidential approval ratings as being the key determinant of mid-terms results.
For reasons that aren't clear to me, Democratic voters don't draw much of a connection between election results, and appointments to the Supreme Court, whereas Republican voters do.
And, we've had two post abortion ruling Generic polls putting the Republicans 3% and 5% ahead.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
I get that Putinist traitors like yourself that want to see Putin's agenda ahead of our own don't get this, but the part of 'security' where we have for seventy years since WWII ensured that there are not major wars of aggression in Europe with countries seeking to rewrite borders wholesale by invading other nations.
We have benefited handsomely from having a relatively peaceful, developed, western world to live in. Maintaining that security, globally, is far more important than any insignificant in comparison sacrifices we might have to be making.
You have zero right to call me a traitor because I choose not to take the same attitude to two third countries, America and Russia, than you do. I am British, not 'Western', and I could far more meaningfully accuse you of being a traitor for actively encouraging a foreign power to exercise de facto sovereignty over our country.
As for invading, attacking, or otherwise destabilising other countries, the record on who has done this to whom, how frequently, and at what human and material cost, is quite clear. Russia isn't at the top of that particular league table.
But he's right. 80 years ago, you'd have been broadcasting "Germany Calling, Germany Calling".
It’s all marble or stone or crystal. They haven’t skimped
Who enjoys coming to a place like this? Who really wants to go shopping for couture in Alexander McQueen when they’re on holiday?
I’ve noticed a third type of inhabitant. Women in their early 30s with tiny dogs (ie refusing to have kids) who were obviously stunning when they were 21 but now they flash evil jealous nervous glances at the 22 year old women in tiny hot pants
J G Ballard would love this place
The slightly older lady will be in the Ghislaine Maxwell role, there to ‘look after’ the younger ladies.
My wife and I were enjoying a restaurant meal in Barcelona in 2018. At the table next to us were a group of 5 young Russian women, one older lady and two very muscular gentlemen on the table next to the door. One of the men escorted the girls whenever one or more went to the toilet. We suspected that they were being managed as a stable. Horrible.
Some private Maldivian villas attached to the ultra-luxe hotels are designed explicitly for this arrangement. There will be a central villa for the Uber-rich man (often from the Middle East but not always) then four or five sub-villas surrounding, for the multiple hookers/mistresses in the harem - usually Slavic but maybe with one cheekboney African girl for variety
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
I get you're (probably) joking, but what a completely stupid idea from Hamilton. Liberty means nothing if you don't have liberty for people you dislike.
Do I like nasty, old, gammony racists with ossified views they formed in the 1970s or earlier, like Jeremy Corbyn? Of course not. But the people I despise have the right to free speech, because if they don't, then I don't either.
If there were free speech restrictions then at one time or other the Lewis Hamilton's of this world would have been subject to them. If you take away Ecclestone's right to speak, then Ecclestone can try to turn around and take away Hamilton's rights away from him.
I think Hamilton's as much of a wanker as Ecclestone and Piquet. And, certainly Putin's fanboys should be allowed to express themselves, just as we can express the view that they're arseholes.
I really don't understand how you can feel that Hamilton's as much of a wanker as Ecclestone.
Indications are labour lead by approx 6% average, but time for you to accept that Johnson is toxic for the conservative party
On another note I have taken part in a ConHome survey with head to heads of Wallace and Hunt, Sunak, Truss, Tugendhat etc which should be out next week. If and when Boris goes would be a clear early indication of the likely successor
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
I get you're (probably) joking, but what a completely stupid idea from Hamilton. Liberty means nothing if you don't have liberty for people you dislike.
Do I like nasty, old, gammony racists with ossified views they formed in the 1970s or earlier, like Jeremy Corbyn? Of course not. But the people I despise have the right to free speech, because if they don't, then I don't either.
If there were free speech restrictions then at one time or other the Lewis Hamilton's of this world would have been subject to them. If you take away Ecclestone's right to speak, then Ecclestone can try to turn around and take away Hamilton's rights away from him.
I think Hamilton's as much of a wanker as Ecclestone and Piquet. And, certainly Putin's fanboys should be allowed to express themselves, just as we can express the view that they're arseholes.
I really don't understand how you can feel that Hamilton's as much of a wanker as Ecclestone.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
Problem with Hamilton is he didn't confine his objection to Bernie or Piquet, he also claimed people like Jackie Stewart deploys micro-aggressions and unconscious bias towards him (because Stewart has said he thinks Hamilton should retire because he is past his best and not in a competitive car).
Stewart exemplifies the problem in a way. He's been a hero for F1, but even if you count the time he ran a team, he has been out of the centre of the sport for decades. Many years ago he said that no driver that had driven over 100 races without a win would ever become champion. He was referring to Jenson Button, who won his first race after 113 attempts.
And three years later won the championship.
ISTR he's said similar stuff in the past, as if he still thinks there are only ten races in a season. The skills required by a driver are also very different nowadays, if only from the PR standpoint.
But I don't agree with Hamilton that they should be banned. Just that journalists and TV companies should understand that, whilst they were heroes in their day, the sport is very different nowadays, and ask whether their views hold much relevance.
I don't think LH is arguing for a ban - he's just asking tv companies to have a care about inviting these old fossils on to spout nonsense.
But he didn't say that, if he had said I think that Jackie Stewart hasn't been part of modern F1 and it has changed, that's fine.
Instead he was banging on about micro-aggressions and how they aren't acceptable in the modern world and that all he does is try to bring people together (by hitting out at anybody who doesn't agree with his world view or opinion on anything).
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
I get that Putinist traitors like yourself that want to see Putin's agenda ahead of our own don't get this, but the part of 'security' where we have for seventy years since WWII ensured that there are not major wars of aggression in Europe with countries seeking to rewrite borders wholesale by invading other nations.
We have benefited handsomely from having a relatively peaceful, developed, western world to live in. Maintaining that security, globally, is far more important than any insignificant in comparison sacrifices we might have to be making.
You have zero right to call me a traitor because I choose not to take the same attitude to two third countries, America and Russia, than you do. I am British, not 'Western', and I could far more meaningfully accuse you of being a traitor for actively encouraging a foreign power to exercise de facto sovereignty over our country.
As for invading, attacking, or otherwise destabilising other countries, the record on who has done this to whom, how frequently, and at what human and material cost, is quite clear. Russia isn't at the top of that particular league table.
A thoroughly stupid argument given we were supporting and training the Ukrainian forces when the US President was trying to use his country's potential support as a bargaining chip in his own sordid domestic politics.
Your blind hatred of anything 'Western' and particularly anything to do with the US at least explains why you lack the basic common sense and decency to stand up for a country when it is being invaded by a dictatorship led by a lunatic. And the understanding that it is very much in our own selfish national interests to ensure that Putin does not succeed in his aims.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
I get you're (probably) joking, but what a completely stupid idea from Hamilton. Liberty means nothing if you don't have liberty for people you dislike.
Do I like nasty, old, gammony racists with ossified views they formed in the 1970s or earlier, like Jeremy Corbyn? Of course not. But the people I despise have the right to free speech, because if they don't, then I don't either.
If there were free speech restrictions then at one time or other the Lewis Hamilton's of this world would have been subject to them. If you take away Ecclestone's right to speak, then Ecclestone can try to turn around and take away Hamilton's rights away from him.
My post is in support of Hamilton's call for tv companies to give less airtime to the Bernie Ecclestones of this world. Which is all it is. He's not actually arguing for my SOF Restrictions Act. That's just idealistic daydreaming from me.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
Great idea.
It should also be accompanied by a Pensioner Peak Time Levy. If they shop, go to the hairdressers, use public transport, basically do anything that inconveniences me - and other working people I suppose - by having to put up with doddery old dears clogging aisles and wandering around looking slightly bewildered, before 9am and after 5pm Mon - Fri and between 10am - 4pm on Saturdays, they should pay double. No ifs, no buts.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
I get you're (probably) joking, but what a completely stupid idea from Hamilton. Liberty means nothing if you don't have liberty for people you dislike.
Do I like nasty, old, gammony racists with ossified views they formed in the 1970s or earlier, like Jeremy Corbyn? Of course not. But the people I despise have the right to free speech, because if they don't, then I don't either.
If there were free speech restrictions then at one time or other the Lewis Hamilton's of this world would have been subject to them. If you take away Ecclestone's right to speak, then Ecclestone can try to turn around and take away Hamilton's rights away from him.
I think Hamilton's as much of a wanker as Ecclestone and Piquet. And, certainly Putin's fanboys should be allowed to express themselves, just as we can express the view that they're arseholes.
Sure everyone has the right to free speech. The question is slightly different. I don't know the numbers but if 95% of the population think Putin is a bad man and 5% a hero, should the broadcasters be amplifying the views of the 5% in search of balance?
If I was in charge of a breakfast news show on ITV or BBC1 I would not be choosing Ecclestone as a panellist. Perhaps on Hardtalk it would be fine.
Labour will never strike deal with SNP, Keir Starmer to pledge Exclusive: Party leader to rule out talks with nationalists in attempt to spike Tory ‘coalition of chaos’ attacks
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
I do hope you are not serious. If not then I should point out that your ideas really are dumber than a bag of rocks.
Olaf Scholz’s coalition government has in recent weeks reiterated its 2021 coalition-deal vow to legalise for recreational use what its Green and liberal party minister have taken to referring to as Bubatz, a slang word for weed popular among German rappers.
I am pleased to announce that Brits can use the same e-passport gates at Rome airport as the locals.
There are, therefore, exactly no queues.
Doesn't that prove that Brexit isn't causing airport/travel queues?
I think it proves that it is possible to run it smoothly, unless - like Mons. Macron perhaps - you are a bastard child of Pinocchio and a performing seal (*).
Olaf Scholz’s coalition government has in recent weeks reiterated its 2021 coalition-deal vow to legalise for recreational use what its Green and liberal party minister have taken to referring to as Bubatz, a slang word for weed popular among German rappers.
- Carpets have increased in price over several years. - Normal kitchen appliances and laminate worktops have not particularly (*&^% Ts and their deep-fat fryers in a new kitchen.) - Inexpensive loos have not increased very far.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
Problem with Hamilton is he didn't confine his objection to Bernie or Piquet, he also claimed people like Jackie Stewart deploys micro-aggressions and unconscious bias towards him (because Stewart has said he thinks Hamilton should retire because he is past his best and not in a competitive car).
Stewart exemplifies the problem in a way. He's been a hero for F1, but even if you count the time he ran a team, he has been out of the centre of the sport for decades. Many years ago he said that no driver that had driven over 100 races without a win would ever become champion. He was referring to Jenson Button, who won his first race after 113 attempts.
And three years later won the championship.
ISTR he's said similar stuff in the past, as if he still thinks there are only ten races in a season. The skills required by a driver are also very different nowadays, if only from the PR standpoint.
But I don't agree with Hamilton that they should be banned. Just that journalists and TV companies should understand that, whilst they were heroes in their day, the sport is very different nowadays, and ask whether their views hold much relevance.
I understand that Sky moved on all their old guard cricket commentators, and have been much better as a result. Sounds like a unique, but welcome, move in sports broadcasting.
No, because they voted to keep him in. They got to 54 letters last time. Lets say it doubles. Still not enough for a fresh vote. They are stuck with him.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
Problem with Hamilton is he didn't confine his objection to Bernie or Piquet, he also claimed people like Jackie Stewart deploys micro-aggressions and unconscious bias towards him (because Stewart has said he thinks Hamilton should retire because he is past his best and not in a competitive car).
Stewart exemplifies the problem in a way. He's been a hero for F1, but even if you count the time he ran a team, he has been out of the centre of the sport for decades. Many years ago he said that no driver that had driven over 100 races without a win would ever become champion. He was referring to Jenson Button, who won his first race after 113 attempts.
And three years later won the championship.
ISTR he's said similar stuff in the past, as if he still thinks there are only ten races in a season. The skills required by a driver are also very different nowadays, if only from the PR standpoint.
But I don't agree with Hamilton that they should be banned. Just that journalists and TV companies should understand that, whilst they were heroes in their day, the sport is very different nowadays, and ask whether their views hold much relevance.
I don't think LH is arguing for a ban - he's just asking tv companies to have a care about inviting these old fossils on to spout nonsense.
But he didn't say that, if he had said I think that Jackie Stewart hasn't been part of modern F1 and it has changed, that's fine.
Instead he was banging on about micro-aggressions and how they aren't acceptable in the modern world and that all he does is try to bring people together (by hitting out at anybody who doesn't agree with his world view or opinion on anything).
He was mainly reacting to Ecclestone and Piquet, I think. Probably pissed off to the rafters that there's still so much of 'that' about.
They’ve made their bed and now they’re stuck with him until he leads them, hopefully into oblivion, at the next election. They deserve everything that’s coming to them.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
Problem with Hamilton is he didn't confine his objection to Bernie or Piquet, he also claimed people like Jackie Stewart deploys micro-aggressions and unconscious bias towards him (because Stewart has said he thinks Hamilton should retire because he is past his best and not in a competitive car).
Stewart exemplifies the problem in a way. He's been a hero for F1, but even if you count the time he ran a team, he has been out of the centre of the sport for decades. Many years ago he said that no driver that had driven over 100 races without a win would ever become champion. He was referring to Jenson Button, who won his first race after 113 attempts.
And three years later won the championship.
ISTR he's said similar stuff in the past, as if he still thinks there are only ten races in a season. The skills required by a driver are also very different nowadays, if only from the PR standpoint.
But I don't agree with Hamilton that they should be banned. Just that journalists and TV companies should understand that, whilst they were heroes in their day, the sport is very different nowadays, and ask whether their views hold much relevance.
I don't think LH is arguing for a ban - he's just asking tv companies to have a care about inviting these old fossils on to spout nonsense.
But he didn't say that, if he had said I think that Jackie Stewart hasn't been part of modern F1 and it has changed, that's fine.
Instead he was banging on about micro-aggressions and how they aren't acceptable in the modern world and that all he does is try to bring people together (by hitting out at anybody who doesn't agree with his world view or opinion on anything).
LH spends too much time immersed in American culture, and sometimes misses the nuanced differences across cultural issues between the UK and US.
On the other hand, he has a point about the old farts hanging around like a bad smell.
What on Earth are BBC Breakfast doing, giving airtime to the likes of Bernie Ecclestone? It’s the same when a comedian says something controversial on TV or radio, the BBC has sufficient editorial control to not broadcast it.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
Problem with Hamilton is he didn't confine his objection to Bernie or Piquet, he also claimed people like Jackie Stewart deploys micro-aggressions and unconscious bias towards him (because Stewart has said he thinks Hamilton should retire because he is past his best and not in a competitive car).
Stewart exemplifies the problem in a way. He's been a hero for F1, but even if you count the time he ran a team, he has been out of the centre of the sport for decades. Many years ago he said that no driver that had driven over 100 races without a win would ever become champion. He was referring to Jenson Button, who won his first race after 113 attempts.
And three years later won the championship.
ISTR he's said similar stuff in the past, as if he still thinks there are only ten races in a season. The skills required by a driver are also very different nowadays, if only from the PR standpoint.
But I don't agree with Hamilton that they should be banned. Just that journalists and TV companies should understand that, whilst they were heroes in their day, the sport is very different nowadays, and ask whether their views hold much relevance.
I understand that Sky moved on all their old guard cricket commentators, and have been much better as a result. Sounds like a unique, but welcome, move in sports broadcasting.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
I do hope you are not serious. If not then I should point out that your ideas really are dumber than a bag of rocks.
Not serious about legal bans - obvs - but perfectly serious about the underlying point. If the culture changes such that we hear less and less from people with outdated prejudiced views I rate that a good thing.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
Great idea.
It should also be accompanied by a Pensioner Peak Time Levy. If they shop, go to the hairdressers, use public transport, basically do anything that inconveniences me - and other working people I suppose - by having to put up with doddery old dears clogging aisles and wandering around looking slightly bewildered, before 9am and after 5pm Mon - Fri and between 10am - 4pm on Saturdays, they should pay double. No ifs, no buts.
Sundays will be open to all. I'm not a monster.
Steady on! That's 'slippery slope' right there. You're killing my bill.
I have a friend who work on superyachts (ETO) and the thing that weirded him out was that the oligarch would have his family (wife, children, nieces/nephews etc) on board, who he genuinely adored, but would put them ashore at the weekend to make space for all the girls. They would follow the main yacht around on a smaller yacht.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
I get that Putinist traitors like yourself that want to see Putin's agenda ahead of our own don't get this, but the part of 'security' where we have for seventy years since WWII ensured that there are not major wars of aggression in Europe with countries seeking to rewrite borders wholesale by invading other nations.
We have benefited handsomely from having a relatively peaceful, developed, western world to live in. Maintaining that security, globally, is far more important than any insignificant in comparison sacrifices we might have to be making.
You have zero right to call me a traitor because I choose not to take the same attitude to two third countries, America and Russia, than you do. I am British, not 'Western', and I could far more meaningfully accuse you of being a traitor for actively encouraging a foreign power to exercise de facto sovereignty over our country.
As for invading, attacking, or otherwise destabilising other countries, the record on who has done this to whom, how frequently, and at what human and material cost, is quite clear. Russia isn't at the top of that particular league table.
The UK being wrong in numerous conflicts in the past is neither here nor there when it comes to whether it's a good idea to stand beside a free democracy that is under attack by an expansionist dictatorship.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the least morally complicated conflict for many decades. You're on the wrong side.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Labour will never strike deal with SNP, Keir Starmer to pledge Exclusive: Party leader to rule out talks with nationalists in attempt to spike Tory ‘coalition of chaos’ attacks
I think SKS is right to say this for now. The idea that in truth you can decide what is possible after an election before it occurs is, of course, nonsense.
It places him in a tricky position if the Tories win more seats than Labour and the LDs don't make up the numbers. Anyone who thinks Boris would not promise a Scottish Referendum 2 if it were essential to stay in power hasn't been paying attention.
(That would give the SNP a multiple dilemma. Including of course the problem of finding they have a Referendum and actually, against their real interests, winning.)
The devil will also be in the detail of the pledge. A commitment not to form a coalition with the SNP is a million miles from not in fact relying on them to remain in government.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
Great idea.
It should also be accompanied by a Pensioner Peak Time Levy. If they shop, go to the hairdressers, use public transport, basically do anything that inconveniences me - and other working people I suppose - by having to put up with doddery old dears clogging aisles and wandering around looking slightly bewildered, before 9am and after 5pm Mon - Fri and between 10am - 4pm on Saturdays, they should pay double. No ifs, no buts.
Sundays will be open to all. I'm not a monster.
Surely allow us the Midnight to 6am slot, we barely get any sleep anyway...
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Except for Russia's skill with heavy artillery. Do we know why the Ukrainians are struggling with it so much? How would a country like Estonia counter that?
Precedents suggest courts dislike “hypothetical” references. In this case, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider a Bill which has not yet been introduced to the Scottish Parliament. Kenneth Armstrong, a constitutional academic at the University of Cambridge, believes there “is a risk that it [the Supreme Court] takes the view that the Scottish parliament needs to first pass the bill so that the issue is not simply hypothetical or advisory”.
If that happens, then the Scottish Government’s proposed Bill would need to be certified by the Lord Advocate before it could be introduced to the Scottish Parliament.
So, there could be some real controversy around the Sturgeon-appointed (but technically independent) LA.
5] The yacht is owned by the family of Russian billionaire Oleg Burlakov, who died in 21 June 2021.[2][6][7]
What the heck is a “full beam beach club”? Because that yacht has one
The beam is the widest point of the yacht.
Ta
And a “beach club”? Can this yacht fake a beach?!
It’s usually the back of the boat where they keep all the toys (not the kind you make) and have on the bigger yachts a bar and seating area low down almost flush with the sea so you can just step off onto the jet ski or for a swim.
Labour will never strike deal with SNP, Keir Starmer to pledge Exclusive: Party leader to rule out talks with nationalists in attempt to spike Tory ‘coalition of chaos’ attacks
I think SKS is right to say this for now. The idea that in truth you can decide what is possible after an election before it occurs is, of course, nonsense.
It places him in a tricky position if the Tories win more seats than Labour and the LDs don't make up the numbers. Anyone who thinks Boris would not promise a Scottish Referendum 2 if it were essential to stay in power hasn't been paying attention.
(That would give the SNP a multiple dilemma. Including of course the problem of finding they have a Referendum and actually, against their real interests, winning.)
The devil will also be in the detail of the pledge. A commitment not to form a coalition with the SNP is a million miles from not in fact relying on them to remain in government.
On the latter point, the distinction of formal coalition vs informal but real support is actually exactly the weasel wording that Slab gave all the appearance of relying on before, and in spirit repudiated after, the recent Scottish local authority elections: Mr Sarwar said, beforehand, no coalitions with any other party.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Except for Russia's skill with heavy artillery. Do we know why the Ukrainians are struggling with it so much? How would a country like Estonia counter that?
The Russians have tons of relatively old fashioned artillery and lots and lots of shells. So they can just saturate an area with mass barrage - see the images online of thousands of shell holes, WWI style.
The way to counter that is to go for the guns and the ammunition re-supply.
So extremely mobile, longer range (longer barrels), highly accurate artillery of your own is a start. Then you look at the precision missiles, aircraft with smart weapons etc. Oh and radar systems to track shells back their point of origin...
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Except for Russia's skill with heavy artillery. Do we know why the Ukrainians are struggling with it so much? How would a country like Estonia counter that?
They’re not using much skill. They’re using volume of ammunition.
Things are about to change, as some serious Western artillery turns up on the Ukranian side, and the Russians lose the advantage of range.
5] The yacht is owned by the family of Russian billionaire Oleg Burlakov, who died in 21 June 2021.[2][6][7]
What the heck is a “full beam beach club”? Because that yacht has one
The beam is the widest point of the yacht.
Ta
And a “beach club”? Can this yacht fake a beach?!
I'd guess that there is a ramp at the stern* which lowers down to give an artificial beach to paddle on and swim from. Like the Royal Navy used to have (HMS Fearless etc). 'Full beam' would simply mean it is full width, wall to wall so to speak. Does there seem to be anything like that?
*the bit at the back end, away from the pointy end, and with the main propellers under it (NB. some vessels have secondary propellers at the pointy end)
ON Ukraine stuff my pessimism about what is happening in Lysychansk is either completely well founded or utterly overblown depending on what bits of Twitter I read.
Either the Ukrainians have already withdraw the bulk of their forces to Siversk leaving skirmishing volunteers behind to frustrate the Russians or they are trapped in Lysychansk as all routes out are now cut.
It certainly seems like the Russians now control the main road out of Lysychansk.
Brexit is unlikely to be to blame for travel chaos at airports, HSBC has said, as a shortage of aviation workers is worse in America and “at least as intense elsewhere in Europe”.
Mark Zuckerberg tells Meta execs to find staff ‘who shouldn’t be here’
Facebook’s parent company Meta is slashing hiring plans as Mark Zuckerberg warns of “one of the worst downturns in recent history”. The social media giant plans to hire as much as 40pc fewer engineers than it had earlier predicted, amid an economic downturn and as privacy changes hit its advertising business.
My other half works for a charity that has a lot of properties, providing housing for vulnerable people. She's just been speaking to their energy broker.
He's just told her to expect gas rationing this winter. It will affect industry first, probably won't affect domestic users, but there's always the possibility it might.
He also said there's a possibility that there could be petrol rationing.
"Britain’s students will become the wokest generation Don't expect them to abandon illiberalism Eric Kaufmann
A survey from the respected, Left-leaning Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) shows that British undergraduates have caught up with the craziness of their North American counterparts. If policymakers don’t act quickly, Britain is likely to become a substantially less free society."
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Do we know why the Ukrainians are struggling with it so much?
1. The Ukrainians are now mostly an army of, occasionally reluctant, conscripts with all that implies for moral and technical competence. Most of the really brave ones are dead by now.
2. Sheer scale. The Russians can bring truly massive amounts of artillery to bear for a very long time.
3. The Russians don't give a fuck how many civvies they kill or how many of their own they lose. Unflinchingly acceptance of mass casualties is thetical to Russian military culture.
Brexit is unlikely to be to blame for travel chaos at airports, HSBC has said, as a shortage of aviation workers is worse in America and “at least as intense elsewhere in Europe”.
I was reading some comments to an article just yesterday, people were moaning about cancelled flights and how the airlines/airports had sacked too many workers. Then I twigged that they were Americans moaning about America.
"Britain’s students will become the wokest generation Don't expect them to abandon illiberalism Eric Kaufmann
A survey from the respected, Left-leaning Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) shows that British undergraduates have caught up with the craziness of their North American counterparts. If policymakers don’t act quickly, Britain is likely to become a substantially less free society."
“The Hepi report finds that 61% of British students think that “when in doubt” their university “should ensure all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech”.”
So 61% of students think universities should obey the law?
Sure everyone has the right to free speech. The question is slightly different. I don't know the numbers but if 95% of the population think Putin is a bad man and 5% a hero, should the broadcasters be amplifying the views of the 5% in search of balance?
If I was in charge of a breakfast news show on ITV or BBC1 I would not be choosing Ecclestone as a panellist. Perhaps on Hardtalk it would be fine.
Freedom of information is more important than balancing every talk show. I'm not really interested in Ecclestone's or Hamilton's views on anything except, I suppose, racing. I would however like to know what both Ukraine and Russia are saying about the war, together with any advice on what has been independently confirmed. The Guardian blog does a reasonable job - the writers are clearly broadly pro-Ukraine but they tell you what's happening too.
The broader question of representing minority opinion is tricky. There comes a point where a view is obviously daft (flat earth society etc.), but having a programme where only one opinion is expressed feels wrong, and boring. There's a range of views on Ukraine from "send in our troops" to "send offensive weapons" to "send defensive weapons" to "do nothing", and all of them ought to get a hearing so we can draw informed conclusions.
Mark Zuckerberg tells Meta execs to find staff ‘who shouldn’t be here’
Facebook’s parent company Meta is slashing hiring plans as Mark Zuckerberg warns of “one of the worst downturns in recent history”. The social media giant plans to hire as much as 40pc fewer engineers than it had earlier predicted, amid an economic downturn and as privacy changes hit its advertising business.
Mark Zuckerberg (signing off zooming) "OK, you have heard my directive - implement! Meanwhile, I will unavailable indefinitely as I'm heading to Porto Montenegro to investigate emerging tech opportunities in the Balkans. AND top off my bilge."
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Do we know why the Ukrainians are struggling with it so much?
1. The Ukrainians are now mostly an army of, occasionally reluctant, conscripts with all that implies for moral and technical competence. Most of the really brave ones are dead by now.
2. Sheer scale. The Russians can bring truly massive amounts of artillery to bear for a very long time.
3. The Russians don't give a fuck how many civvies they kill or how many of their own they lose. Unflinchingly acceptance of mass casualties is thetical to Russian military culture.
"Most of the really brave ones are dead by now."
Sorry, but that smells like b/s
The idea that people fighting for their country are automatically any less 'brave' than those who were regular soldiers before (even taking into account the warm conflict in the Donbass 2015-2022) is ridiculous.
If anything, you need to be blooming brave to give up a cushy civilian job to go and fight. Yes, there will be those who flake out in action - but that's the same for the Russians as well. In fact for the DNR/LNR soldiers being 'recruited' atm, it's probably *far* worse.
My other half works for a charity that has a lot of properties, providing housing for vulnerable people. She's just been speaking to their energy broker.
He's just told her to expect gas rationing this winter. It will affect industry first, probably won't affect domestic users, but there's always the possibility it might.
He also said there's a possibility that there could be petrol rationing.
All depends on how bad a winter it is.
What fun.
I await more details.
I'd expect a bit of contingency planning for the winter, to include unlikely scenarios, but I would have hoped we had time to take other steps to make rationing unnecessary.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Do we know why the Ukrainians are struggling with it so much?
1. The Ukrainians are now mostly an army of, occasionally reluctant, conscripts with all that implies for moral and technical competence. Most of the really brave ones are dead by now.
2. Sheer scale. The Russians can bring truly massive amounts of artillery to bear for a very long time.
3. The Russians don't give a fuck how many civvies they kill or how many of their own they lose. Unflinchingly acceptance of mass casualties is thetical to Russian military culture.
Seem that the Brit that noted Anglophile Valdimir the Terrible admires most, is Bomber Harris.
My other half works for a charity that has a lot of properties, providing housing for vulnerable people. She's just been speaking to their energy broker.
He's just told her to expect gas rationing this winter. It will affect industry first, probably won't affect domestic users, but there's always the possibility it might.
He also said there's a possibility that there could be petrol rationing.
All depends on how bad a winter it is.
What fun.
I await more details.
Add in rising interest rates, soaring inflation, potential new covid restrictions,ballooning waitings lists, strikes, swingeing taxation, plus the above, and how bad a recession are we looking at this winter? How bad could things get?
The tories are sinking without trace here. Sinking without f8cking trace.
Saw a bit of a YongYea video about the metaverse earlier today. It looks somewhere between dystopian and embarrassing.
However, big business is quite keen on this idea so I wonder if they'll throw money at it until it sticks. There's already NFTs for virtual real estate, wearables, and other electronic tosh.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Except for Russia's skill with heavy artillery. Do we know why the Ukrainians are struggling with it so much? How would a country like Estonia counter that?
The Russians have tons of relatively old fashioned artillery and lots and lots of shells. So they can just saturate an area with mass barrage - see the images online of thousands of shell holes, WWI style.
The way to counter that is to go for the guns and the ammunition re-supply.
So extremely mobile, longer range (longer barrels), highly accurate artillery of your own is a start. Then you look at the precision missiles, aircraft with smart weapons etc. Oh and radar systems to track shells back their point of origin...
The aircraft with smart weapons, not so much. They cost a huge amount of money, and what we've seen in recent days is that at ranges under 50km, you can now use unguided artillery shells with a quite high degree of precision.
Most new NATO artillery (and even for example our decades old, but upgraded 105mm guns we're now sending over there) comes with GPS targeting. Fly a Bayraktar or equivalent overhead to geolocate the target, and for subsequent range correction, and you can drop dumb shells directly on top of it.
Much cheaper than using MRLS, too.
The technology is almost trivially easy, and available to virtually any state with a bit of effort and time.
Brexit is unlikely to be to blame for travel chaos at airports, HSBC has said, as a shortage of aviation workers is worse in America and “at least as intense elsewhere in Europe”.
I was reading some comments to an article just yesterday, people were moaning about cancelled flights and how the airlines/airports had sacked too many workers. Then I twigged that they were Americans moaning about America.
It’s the same everywhere. The whole industry laid off too many staff during the pandemic, and now can’t get them back. Airport and airline staff often have clearances and certifications that take time to process or train for.
You need to do an airport driving test, to drive a standard car airside at most airports. Same with all the ‘golf buggies’.
If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?
One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.
Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.
Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.
SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.
Great idea.
It should also be accompanied by a Pensioner Peak Time Levy. If they shop, go to the hairdressers, use public transport, basically do anything that inconveniences me - and other working people I suppose - by having to put up with doddery old dears clogging aisles and wandering around looking slightly bewildered, before 9am and after 5pm Mon - Fri and between 10am - 4pm on Saturdays, they should pay double. No ifs, no buts.
Sundays will be open to all. I'm not a monster.
Surely allow us the Midnight to 6am slot, we barely get any sleep anyway...
Brexit is unlikely to be to blame for travel chaos at airports, HSBC has said, as a shortage of aviation workers is worse in America and “at least as intense elsewhere in Europe”.
I was reading some comments to an article just yesterday, people were moaning about cancelled flights and how the airlines/airports had sacked too many workers. Then I twigged that they were Americans moaning about America.
Pertinently
Bloomberg UK @BloombergUK · 2m "The airports are just folding, stopping"
Travel is a mess all over the world — but Europe is where you'll find the epicentre of this summer's vacation chaos
Brexit is unlikely to be to blame for travel chaos at airports, HSBC has said, as a shortage of aviation workers is worse in America and “at least as intense elsewhere in Europe”.
I was reading some comments to an article just yesterday, people were moaning about cancelled flights and how the airlines/airports had sacked too many workers. Then I twigged that they were Americans moaning about America.
Pertinently
Bloomberg UK @BloombergUK · 2m "The airports are just folding, stopping"
Travel is a mess all over the world — but Europe is where you'll find the epicentre of this summer's vacation chaos
Brexit is unlikely to be to blame for travel chaos at airports, HSBC has said, as a shortage of aviation workers is worse in America and “at least as intense elsewhere in Europe”.
I was reading some comments to an article just yesterday, people were moaning about cancelled flights and how the airlines/airports had sacked too many workers. Then I twigged that they were Americans moaning about America.
Pertinently
Bloomberg UK @BloombergUK · 2m "The airports are just folding, stopping"
Travel is a mess all over the world — but Europe is where you'll find the epicentre of this summer's vacation chaos
Maybe people have lost the necessary self-discipline to keep airports running smoothly.
A few months ago there was something about all the work that needed doing to get ?Gatwick South Terminal? back up and running after Covid. Even with all the maintenance they had done, it was a non-trivial task. I can easily imagine the staff that went back are equally rusty.
Brexit is unlikely to be to blame for travel chaos at airports, HSBC has said, as a shortage of aviation workers is worse in America and “at least as intense elsewhere in Europe”.
I was reading some comments to an article just yesterday, people were moaning about cancelled flights and how the airlines/airports had sacked too many workers. Then I twigged that they were Americans moaning about America.
Pertinently
Bloomberg UK @BloombergUK · 2m "The airports are just folding, stopping"
Travel is a mess all over the world — but Europe is where you'll find the epicentre of this summer's vacation chaos
Remarkable that an industry that was shut down globally by government fiat for years, is now straining at the sinews now that travel has recovered.
Its almost as if telling people they can't work in a sector for years, and telling a sector it can't operate for years, might actually have consequences afterwards.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Do we know why the Ukrainians are struggling with it so much?
1. The Ukrainians are now mostly an army of, occasionally reluctant, conscripts with all that implies for moral and technical competence. Most of the really brave ones are dead by now.
2. Sheer scale. The Russians can bring truly massive amounts of artillery to bear for a very long time.
3. The Russians don't give a fuck how many civvies they kill or how many of their own they lose. Unflinchingly acceptance of mass casualties is thetical to Russian military culture.
Your first point is nonsense, lots of evidence that Ukrainian morale is high, Russian morale is low. The Ukrainians are balancing casualties versus territory and have had to concede piffling amounts of the latter in last two months (balanced by small gains). Point 2 is correct but will fade (first signs already) due to incremental deployment of superior Western artillery conducting counter-battery fire and hitting ammo dumps etc. On the third point the leadership are totally ruthless but dismal Russian demographics and fear of political collapse (no general mobilisation yet you will notice) are constraining them. The Russians are facing comprehensive defeat and presumably many are starting to realise it. They probably think they can keep current gains by hitting civilians and hoping West falls for a "let's stop the killing" line when they propose a cease fire. I think they have misjudged that and will be rolled back and Putin will be a goner.
Brexit is unlikely to be to blame for travel chaos at airports, HSBC has said, as a shortage of aviation workers is worse in America and “at least as intense elsewhere in Europe”.
I was reading some comments to an article just yesterday, people were moaning about cancelled flights and how the airlines/airports had sacked too many workers. Then I twigged that they were Americans moaning about America.
Pertinently
Bloomberg UK @BloombergUK · 2m "The airports are just folding, stopping"
Travel is a mess all over the world — but Europe is where you'll find the epicentre of this summer's vacation chaos
Remarkable that an industry that was shut down globally by government fiat for years, is now straining at the sinews now that travel has recovered.
Its almost as if telling people they can't work in a sector for years, and telling a sector it can't operate for years, might actually have consequences afterwards.
Yes, who could have guessed that unprecedented global shutdowns, entire nationwide quarantines, and total bans on travel. on the back of a deadly worldwide plague, would have some short-medium term consequences, and cause the odd hiccup
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Do we know why the Ukrainians are struggling with it so much?
1. The Ukrainians are now mostly an army of, occasionally reluctant, conscripts with all that implies for moral and technical competence. Most of the really brave ones are dead by now. 2.
3. Sheer scale. The Russians can bring truly massive amounts of artillery to bear for a very long time.
3. The Russians don't give a fuck how many civvies they kill or how many of their own they lose. Unflinchingly acceptance of mass casualties is thetical to Russian military culture.
None if which helps them much once Ukraine has a reasonable weight if artillery which significantly outranges them. And is far more accurately targeted. You're right that it's a brutal numbers game, but the numbers are slowly turning in Ukraine's favour.
(Assuming, of course, that the west keeps its recent promises of more kit.)
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 4h In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.
The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.
The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.
Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.
Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.
We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.
The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.
There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.
Because it is.
Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.
Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.
Because the country which we are opposing is hostile to us, and by ensuring that they get a bloody nose in Ukraine, we reduce their capacity to cause mischief to us and our allies.
Precisely.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
Also helping our own defence industry, as all the countries holding Russian kit realise it’s not up to a modern war against NATO kit.
Do we know why the Ukrainians are struggling with it so much?
1. The Ukrainians are now mostly an army of, occasionally reluctant, conscripts with all that implies for moral and technical competence. Most of the really brave ones are dead by now.
2. Sheer scale. The Russians can bring truly massive amounts of artillery to bear for a very long time.
3. The Russians don't give a fuck how many civvies they kill or how many of their own they lose. Unflinchingly acceptance of mass casualties is thetical to Russian military culture.
Your first point is nonsense, lots of evidence that Ukrainian morale is high, Russian morale is low. The Ukrainians are balancing casualties versus territory and have had to concede piffling amounts of the latter in last two months (balanced by small gains). Point 2 is correct but will fade (first signs already) due to incremental deployment of superior Western artillery conducting counter-battery fire and hitting ammo dumps etc. On the third point the leadership are totally ruthless but dismal Russian demographics and fear of political collapse (no general mobilisation yet you will notice) are constraining them. The Russians are facing comprehensive defeat and presumably many are starting to realise it. They probably think they can keep current gains by hitting civilians and hoping West falls for a "let's stop the killing" line when they propose a cease fire. I think they have misjudged that and will be rolled back and Putin will be a goner.
Dura_Ace likes to accuse some on here (almost certainly including me) of being to pro-Ukraine, and thinking the war is progressing better for them than it is.
I think he suffers from the opposite problem: he give the impression that he thinks that the Russians are totally invincible given time.
To be fair to the humble consumer trying to have a holiday, I think most people have accepted that travel is going to be glitchy and problematic, for a while, following a deadly global plague. You are taking a risk in traveling, right now, and everyone understands that - but many are willing to risk it, because they have been starved of travel for so long
The moaning seems to come more from journalists seeking a story, than actual punters
Comments
is an anagram of
Fannee finds oral sex helped for job
As for invading, attacking, or otherwise destabilising other countries, the record on who has done this to whom, how frequently, and at what human and material cost, is quite clear. Russia isn't at the top of that particular league table.
Stewart is like a lot of sports suffer from greats of the past thinking the game hasn't changed and their approach would work today. Holding in cricket, his take was basically just bowl quick that will do it, Boycott bat properly lad, football, the whole of the MOTD team (bar perhaps Jenas) talk absolute shite about modern football tactics, etc etc etc.
Instead he was banging on about micro-aggressions and how they aren't acceptable in the modern world and that all he does is try to bring people together (by hitting out at anybody who doesn't agree with his world view or opinion on anything).
I just saw some middle aged guy with - amazingly and uniquely - a middle aged woman and I thought: why the fuck has he brought his Mum??
Your blind hatred of anything 'Western' and particularly anything to do with the US at least explains why you lack the basic common sense and decency to stand up for a country when it is being invaded by a dictatorship led by a lunatic. And the understanding that it is very much in our own selfish national interests to ensure that Putin does not succeed in his aims.
It should also be accompanied by a Pensioner Peak Time Levy. If they shop, go to the hairdressers, use public transport, basically do anything that inconveniences me - and other working people I suppose - by having to put up with doddery old dears clogging aisles and wandering around looking slightly bewildered, before 9am and after 5pm Mon - Fri and between 10am - 4pm on Saturdays, they should pay double. No ifs, no buts.
Sundays will be open to all. I'm not a monster.
@BritainElects
·
36m
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 41% (+2)
CON: 30% (-3)
LDEM: 15% (+3)
GRN: 6% (+1)
via
@IpsosUK
, 22 - 29 Jun
Chgs. w/ May
Tories down to 30 how low can they go
All 3 alternatives benefit
If I was in charge of a breakfast news show on ITV or BBC1 I would not be choosing Ecclestone as a panellist. Perhaps on Hardtalk it would be fine.
Exclusive: Party leader to rule out talks with nationalists in attempt to spike Tory ‘coalition of chaos’ attacks
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/01/labour-never-strike-deal-snp-keir-starmer-pledge
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/01/germanys-move-to-legalise-cannabis-expected-to-create-domino-effect
Sounds rather cringe for politicians to be using rapper slang.
I think it proves that it is possible to run it smoothly, unless - like Mons. Macron perhaps - you are a bastard child of Pinocchio and a performing seal (*).
Arguably BloJo-BoJo also fits the stereotype.
https://www.planetf1.com/news/nelson-piquet-lewis-hamilton-fresh-slur/
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542847086823096325
1st housing minor refresh for some time.
- Carpets have increased in price over several years.
- Normal kitchen appliances and laminate worktops have not particularly (*&^% Ts and their deep-fat fryers in a new kitchen.)
- Inexpensive loos have not increased very far.
However, he then suggested he “mis-spoke”, and corrected to say the PM was not aware of any “specific allegation”.
The spokesman did not clarify what specific allegation the PM was unaware of..
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1542835766065348612
On the other hand, he has a point about the old farts hanging around like a bad smell.
What on Earth are BBC Breakfast doing, giving airtime to the likes of Bernie Ecclestone? It’s the same when a comedian says something controversial on TV or radio, the BBC has sufficient editorial control to not broadcast it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pearl_(yacht)
They really are all here
5] The yacht is owned by the family of Russian billionaire Oleg Burlakov, who died in 21 June 2021.[2][6][7]
What the heck is a “full beam beach club”? Because that yacht has one
And now refuses to remove the whip.
BoZo has already personally fucked this up, twice.
And a “beach club”? Can this yacht fake a beach?!
Scottish Independence Voting Intention:
NO: 46%
YES: 39%
Don't Know: 15%
Don't Knows excluded:
NO: 54%
YES: 46%
Via @techneUK, On 29-30 June.
No10 still hasn't confirmed when Boris Johnson first became aware of allegations about Pincher's behaviour.
That includes whether he knew about Pincher's behaviour at the Carlton Club before Pincher offered his resignation last night. https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1542835485705478144
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the least morally complicated conflict for many decades. You're on the wrong side.
We are running down the stock of NLAWS, but in the process, running down the stock of Russian tanks against which they might ever be used.
It could also be argued that the Ukraine war is *improving* the combat capability of the military.
The intelligence we are receiving on actual modern combat is probably worth billions, in terms of making our next generation of weapons actually do what is needed. Also probably saving the lives of British troops in future battles.
He resigned for alleged misconduct, was cleared then by the official investigation, and reappointed to the Whips Office as Deputy Whip by Theresa May.
So he was already appointed before Boris became PM.
(Be aware that your oligarch could magic back to Russia if you upset him. That happens quite a lot too)
It places him in a tricky position if the Tories win more seats than Labour and the LDs don't make up the numbers. Anyone who thinks Boris would not promise a Scottish Referendum 2 if it were essential to stay in power hasn't been paying attention.
(That would give the SNP a multiple dilemma. Including of course the problem of finding they have a Referendum and actually, against their real interests, winning.)
The devil will also be in the detail of the pledge. A commitment not to form a coalition with the SNP is a million miles from not in fact relying on them to remain in government.
Wiki says it's 45% No?
Forsake the fleshpots of the littoral, and hie yourself to the flinty hinterlands!
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/scottish-independence-referendum-role-of-the-supreme-court/
Precedents suggest courts dislike “hypothetical” references. In this case, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider a Bill which has not yet been introduced to the Scottish Parliament. Kenneth Armstrong, a constitutional academic at the University of Cambridge, believes there “is a risk that it [the Supreme Court] takes the view that the Scottish parliament needs to first pass the bill so that the issue is not simply hypothetical or advisory”.
If that happens, then the Scottish Government’s proposed Bill would need to be certified by the Lord Advocate before it could be introduced to the Scottish Parliament.
So, there could be some real controversy around the Sturgeon-appointed (but technically independent) LA.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/20243849.edinburgh-labour-suspend-two-councillors-tory-deal-opposition/
The way to counter that is to go for the guns and the ammunition re-supply.
So extremely mobile, longer range (longer barrels), highly accurate artillery of your own is a start. Then you look at the precision missiles, aircraft with smart weapons etc. Oh and radar systems to track shells back their point of origin...
Things are about to change, as some serious Western artillery turns up on the Ukranian side, and the Russians lose the advantage of range.
*the bit at the back end, away from the pointy end, and with the main propellers under it (NB. some vessels have secondary propellers at the pointy end)
As opposed to being able to use them as a right.
I think it's holding all the cards that swung it.
Either the Ukrainians have already withdraw the bulk of their forces to Siversk leaving skirmishing volunteers behind to frustrate the Russians or they are trapped in Lysychansk as all routes out are now cut.
It certainly seems like the Russians now control the main road out of Lysychansk.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/01/brexit-not-blame-travel-chaos-says-hsbc/
Mark Zuckerberg tells Meta execs to find staff ‘who shouldn’t be here’
Facebook’s parent company Meta is slashing hiring plans as Mark Zuckerberg warns of “one of the worst downturns in recent history”. The social media giant plans to hire as much as 40pc fewer engineers than it had earlier predicted, amid an economic downturn and as privacy changes hit its advertising business.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2022/07/01/mark-zuckerberg-tells-meta-execs-find-staff-who-shouldnt/
I have a suggestion for Mark, a Mr N. Clegg ;-)
My other half works for a charity that has a lot of properties, providing housing for vulnerable people. She's just been speaking to their energy broker.
He's just told her to expect gas rationing this winter. It will affect industry first, probably won't affect domestic users, but there's always the possibility it might.
He also said there's a possibility that there could be petrol rationing.
All depends on how bad a winter it is.
What fun.
I await more details.
Mail journalists work in mysterious ways Grasshopper.
Don't expect them to abandon illiberalism
Eric Kaufmann
A survey from the respected, Left-leaning Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) shows that British undergraduates have caught up with the craziness of their North American counterparts. If policymakers don’t act quickly, Britain is likely to become a substantially less free society."
https://unherd.com/thepost/britains-students-will-be-woke-forever/
2. Sheer scale. The Russians can bring truly massive amounts of artillery to bear for a very long time.
3. The Russians don't give a fuck how many civvies they kill or how many of their own they lose. Unflinchingly acceptance of mass casualties is thetical to Russian military culture.
So 61% of students think universities should obey the law?
The broader question of representing minority opinion is tricky. There comes a point where a view is obviously daft (flat earth society etc.), but having a programme where only one opinion is expressed feels wrong, and boring. There's a range of views on Ukraine from "send in our troops" to "send offensive weapons" to "send defensive weapons" to "do nothing", and all of them ought to get a hearing so we can draw informed conclusions.
Sorry, but that smells like b/s
The idea that people fighting for their country are automatically any less 'brave' than those who were regular soldiers before (even taking into account the warm conflict in the Donbass 2015-2022) is ridiculous.
If anything, you need to be blooming brave to give up a cushy civilian job to go and fight. Yes, there will be those who flake out in action - but that's the same for the Russians as well. In fact for the DNR/LNR soldiers being 'recruited' atm, it's probably *far* worse.
The tories are sinking without trace here. Sinking without f8cking trace.
However, big business is quite keen on this idea so I wonder if they'll throw money at it until it sticks. There's already NFTs for virtual real estate, wearables, and other electronic tosh.
They cost a huge amount of money, and what we've seen in recent days is that at ranges under 50km, you can now use unguided artillery shells with a quite high degree of precision.
Most new NATO artillery (and even for example our decades old, but upgraded 105mm guns we're now sending over there) comes with GPS targeting.
Fly a Bayraktar or equivalent overhead to geolocate the target, and for subsequent range correction, and you can drop dumb shells directly on top of it.
Much cheaper than using MRLS, too.
The technology is almost trivially easy, and available to virtually any state with a bit of effort and time.
You need to do an airport driving test, to drive a standard car airside at most airports. Same with all the ‘golf buggies’.
Bloomberg UK
@BloombergUK
·
2m
"The airports are just folding, stopping"
Travel is a mess all over the world — but Europe is where you'll find the epicentre of this summer's vacation chaos
Read The Big Take ⬇️
https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1542863792329064450?s=20&t=_tKH0-s8YbnPi3dl__I5bw
Its almost as if telling people they can't work in a sector for years, and telling a sector it can't operate for years, might actually have consequences afterwards.
You're right that it's a brutal numbers game, but the numbers are slowly turning in Ukraine's favour.
(Assuming, of course, that the west keeps its recent promises of more kit.)
I think he suffers from the opposite problem: he give the impression that he thinks that the Russians are totally invincible given time.
The moaning seems to come more from journalists seeking a story, than actual punters