Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I have on occasion been down the "Police audit" wormholes on FB/YT.
Pretty funny/disturbing/cautionary some of the responses. Koleeberks is my auditor of choice.
I've watched some Auditing Britain - but that's in regards to filming in public sort of law, not necessarily questioning people in an investigation potentially pre prosecution.
No absolutely. But it shows how the police will reach for whatever (often spurious) grounds to take action.
The critical thing about those auditing vids is that they are filming in public which is perfectly legal (and the MPS have a statement to that effect on their website) but the police often think in itself is grounds to search the auditors under S.43 of the Terrorism Act.
And that's aside from the more egregious behaviour which is often seen (and of course welcomed by the auditors I'm sure as it is good clickbait).
IANAL but from what I can see filming in public even if the subject is a police station isn't necessarily grounds in itself to invoke S.43.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
You Marxists never were great fans of freedom of speech were you.
I'm less concerned about a middle class women being asked questions in a police station, who later tweets through it, versus people protesting police violence against women / young black men being beaten up and hauled away when peacefully protesting.
It is not an either/or. Both of them are bad and should not be allowed. Indeed the fact that your example is worse doesn't make the middle class woman's example any better. The police simply should not have the power to do these things.
Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.
Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.
In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).
So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.
Hurrah.
£2 per day? Your network is ripping you off, get a better one. Or get a local SIM card.
All pretty frictionless options vs the status quo ante when I had to....turn on my phone and use it.
If your network doesn't value you as a customer, then you have always had the option to switch.
But remember that "free" roaming is essentially a subsidy of richer customers, who travel more, by poorer customers, who travel less.
Looked like a pretty diverse bunch queuing up at St. Pancras. Are you saying that people from Hartlepool are too dim and stupid to travel to France?
Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. Since you're going to make an idiot of yourself, I think I'd better leave it there before you make yourself look even worse.
Oh dear yourself that was what you were implying. That the proles wouldn't be travelling anywhere.
Plus what about you giving up campaigning or supporting the Cons in 1997? I mean Labour won in a democratic vote, after all.
Or were you not old enough to vote then?
(A) no it wasn't, stop lying.
(B) I've already addressed the 1997 point earlier in the thread, stop trolling and start reading.
I'm liking your "I think I'd better leave it there" approach.
Not hugely surprised a) that I missed your post; or b) that you were too young then. It shows.
So as a would have been Lab voter I presume you are a died in the wool Cons supporter now and frankly, these past few years, who can blame you.
If you want to keep embarrassing yourself by lying, I suppose I shouldn't try to stop you.
I'm not a died (or even dyed)-in-the-wool anything supporter. We have elections, and at each of them I choose who to vote for. For the last two elections, that was the Tories, because Corbyn. At the next one, it will probably be Labour, but it does depend on the local candidate - over the last few years (especially over Covid and lockdowns) neither major party has shown itself to be particularly worthy of forming a government, but I suppose we have to have one or the other.
How come you are allowed to change your mind but you disallow anyone who thinks Brexit is a shitshow from saying they think it is a shitshow and that they should just accept it? Why is saying Brexit is a shitshow not political debate? Why is it "bitching and moaning"?
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
Working with moderate leavers was pointless given that it was not the moderates who were making any of the decisions. And we have never been a country that said that if you lost you had to shut up and be happy.
I disagreed then and still disagree with the attempts by the Remainers to overturn the result. But I certainly don't extend that to believing they should just stop talking about it nor point up the failures when they occur.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Not at all. Going on her word having the Police forcing entry into her home and being arrested without a warrant or specific allegations of a crime, and having her property seized without a warrant either, and put in cells for it too, no I would not want that for most interactions with the Police.
What I would want for most interactions with the Police is a polite knock on the door, a polite request to come to the station or if now is not convenient a request to arrange a time to do so, or the Police first to require a warrant if property is being seized.
I should hope we would hold our Police to a higher standard than "well they didn't murder you or beat you up, so what are you complaining about?"
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
Working with moderate leavers was pointless given that it was not the moderates who were making any of the decisions. And we have never been a country that said that if you lost you had to shut up and be happy.
I disagreed then and still disagree with the attempts by the Remainers to overturn the result. But I certainly don't extend that to believing they should just stop talking about it nor point up the failures when they occur.
It only wasn't the moderates making the decisions because the former Remainers missed their chance immediately after the referendum. If Cameron had stayed rather than flouncing, it would certainly have helped - but by the time May took office, the former Remainers had vacated the playing field leaving her, and subsequently Boris, having to get through a form of Brexit that satisfied the headbangers because the alternative - overturning the referendum result - was impossible.
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
Well he has never rebelled in a vote. Which, given the huge variance of party leaders his party have had since he came into Parliament in 2005 doesn't really endear him to me.
He looks generally to be quite socially conservative and views the poor as something to be endured and kept in their place (at least based on his voting record).
He might be a safe pair of hands but I am not a fan of his political positions nor his lack of backbone.
Yes but you are a libertarian so will obviously be more sympathetic to Truss than an alternative leader.
Nope. I was arguing against Truss since the start of the process.
And Truss is not a Libertarian. She is a classic Tory - tax cuts for your rich mates and fuck the rest of the country. If anyone should be delighted with her it is you. She is a classic Tory wet dream.
I would take Wallace any day over Truss or Johnson. But unlike you with your 'my party right or wrong' approach I am willing to recognise the failings as well as the benefits of the various potential party leaders.
No she isn't, she is not a traditional monarchist nor One Nation Tory.
By definition libertarianism means tax cuts for the rich as much as the poor while slashing the size of the state. As well as being socially liberal and pro immigration.
It may be therefore you are not as libertarian as Bart, however Truss certainly is a libertarian
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
No one has suggested getting involved in a nuclear war. What has been said is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons then we should respond with conventional attacks on their forces. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
Working with moderate leavers was pointless given that it was not the moderates who were making any of the decisions. And we have never been a country that said that if you lost you had to shut up and be happy.
I disagreed then and still disagree with the attempts by the Remainers to overturn the result. But I certainly don't extend that to believing they should just stop talking about it nor point up the failures when they occur.
Absolutely.
To deny people with one particular political opinion from expressing that opinion is a bizarre position to take for someone on PB of all websites. We remainers accept that we lost. It doesn't float my boat to campaign for a new vote as it would be hugely disruptive but there would be nothing undemocratic about campaigning for one and who knows maybe a party will spring up and do just that.
But I suppose @Driver is young and his views will develop as he grows older.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty of which Ukraine is a signatory bans states without nuclear weapons from acquiring or making them. (Article 2.)
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
Well he has never rebelled in a vote. Which, given the huge variance of party leaders his party have had since he came into Parliament in 2005 doesn't really endear him to me.
He looks generally to be quite socially conservative and views the poor as something to be endured and kept in their place (at least based on his voting record).
He might be a safe pair of hands but I am not a fan of his political positions nor his lack of backbone.
Yes but you are a libertarian so will obviously be more sympathetic to Truss than an alternative leader.
The Truss core vote is now you and Bart
Do not take my vote for granted.
I will vote for a party, or support a leader, only for as long as I think they are doing the right thing. If I no longer think that, I will stop supporting them, as I did with Boris.
If Truss were to reverse course on tax cuts, abandon planning reform etc, etc then I would no longer have a reason to support her or her party.
One might forgive Ukrainians laughing bitterly at that given its territorial integrity, upon surrendering its nukes, was guaranteed by countries including Russia.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
As HYUFD says: 1- Blockade/isolation. The traditional remedy for those breaking a huge taboo. And way beyond these sanctions; we're talking imposed Juche. 2 - NATO enforces a no-fly zone over Ukraine and NATO personnel head in, carrying out support roles (and medical assistance for those affected). And we make Putin well aware of this. Any attack on any NATO personnel is a tripwire, as before. 3 - Carrier Battle Group heads to the Eastern Med. Ready to take action if necessary.
Those look like sensible steps, with Putin warned that another nuke means NATO go in with full conventional force into Ukraine. And help push him out to the borders of Russia - and no further.
Always a further step for NATO to escalate further.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
The ERG was just as to blame for no way through being found. However, full-fat Brexit was always going to be the best way to discredit the whole project and for us to at least head back towards the single market for the time being.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty of which Ukraine is a signatory bans states without nuclear weapons from acquiring or making them. (Article 2.)
Would you be even be surprised when they abrogate? If Putin uses nuke with no consequences, every state with access to plutonium will have the bomb. In days.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
The ERG was just as to blame for no way through being found. However, full-fat Brexit was always going to be the best way to discredit the whole project and for us to at least head back towards the single market for the time being.
What are you talking about, the ERG found a way through.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
No one has suggested getting involved in a nuclear war. What has been said is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons then we should respond with conventional attacks on their forces. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And Putin may well then also decide to respond with nuclear weapons on us if we sink his fleet and directly attack his troops
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
I agree with you here.
A first step response is in my view not a military one. It is one that brings (hopefully) the whole world community with it and should be an economic and political one.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty of which Ukraine is a signatory bans states without nuclear weapons from acquiring or making them. (Article 2.)
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
The ERG was just as to blame for no way through being found. However, full-fat Brexit was always going to be the best way to discredit the whole project and for us to at least head back towards the single market for the time being.
But what good does "discrediting the whole project" do? It damages the country, and it doesn't advance the Rejoin cause one jot.
One might forgive Ukrainians laughing bitterly at that given its territorial integrity, upon surrendering its nukes, was guaranteed by countries including Russia.
Hi MD. They could formally renege on the NPT. This is all a bit academic, because Ukraine is not going to acquire or make nukes in the near future. I was just responding to HYUFD's comment that non-nuke states are free to make nukes if they want, which if they're NPT signatories they are not - not lawfully anyway.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
It is done Hiroo Onoda, we have left. That's as done as done can be.
What we're dealing with is now post-Brexit. We will deal with post-Brexit for a very long time, just as we had post-war legacy issues to resolve even after the war was over.
Brexit has left large parts of the country and our economy bombed out? Shocking to see such Project Fear stuff from you, Mr Roberts…
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
Well he has never rebelled in a vote. Which, given the huge variance of party leaders his party have had since he came into Parliament in 2005 doesn't really endear him to me.
He looks generally to be quite socially conservative and views the poor as something to be endured and kept in their place (at least based on his voting record).
He might be a safe pair of hands but I am not a fan of his political positions nor his lack of backbone.
Yes but you are a libertarian so will obviously be more sympathetic to Truss than an alternative leader.
Nope. I was arguing against Truss since the start of the process.
And Truss is not a Libertarian. She is a classic Tory - tax cuts for your rich mates and fuck the rest of the country. If anyone should be delighted with her it is you. She is a classic Tory wet dream.
I would take Wallace any day over Truss or Johnson. But unlike you with your 'my party right or wrong' approach I am willing to recognise the failings as well as the benefits of the various potential party leaders.
No she isn't, she is not a traditional monarchist nor One Nation Tory.
By definition libertarianism means tax cuts for the rich as much as the poor while slashing the size of the state. As well as being socially liberal and pro immigration.
It may be therefore you are not as libertarian as Bart, however Truss certainly is a libertarian
Where were the tax cuts for the poor? Where is the pro-immigration and socially liberal stance?
She has always voted in favour of mass surveillance of people's communications and activities She has always voted in favour of the retention of people's data by the state. She has always voted in favour of stricter immigration laws
She has voted favour of increasing VAT, increasing tax on flights, and increasing duty on alcohol.
She votes for reducing taxes on companies and the rich and increasing them on the poor.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty of which Ukraine is a signatory bans states without nuclear weapons from acquiring or making them. (Article 2.)
Would you be even be surprised when they abrogate? If Putin uses nuke with no consequences, every state with access to plutonium will have the bomb. In days.
Indeed.
It's not as though India, Pakistan, Israel, or even North Korea have suffered in any way through refusing to follow the NPT.
So - follow the NPT and be victims. Break it and be safe. Simple equation - IF Putin benefits from nuking someone.
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
Well he has never rebelled in a vote. Which, given the huge variance of party leaders his party have had since he came into Parliament in 2005 doesn't really endear him to me.
He looks generally to be quite socially conservative and views the poor as something to be endured and kept in their place (at least based on his voting record).
He might be a safe pair of hands but I am not a fan of his political positions nor his lack of backbone.
Yes but you are a libertarian so will obviously be more sympathetic to Truss than an alternative leader.
Nope. I was arguing against Truss since the start of the process.
And Truss is not a Libertarian. She is a classic Tory - tax cuts for your rich mates and fuck the rest of the country. If anyone should be delighted with her it is you. She is a classic Tory wet dream.
I would take Wallace any day over Truss or Johnson. But unlike you with your 'my party right or wrong' approach I am willing to recognise the failings as well as the benefits of the various potential party leaders.
No she isn't, she is not a traditional monarchist nor One Nation Tory.
By definition libertarianism means tax cuts for the rich as much as the poor while slashing the size of the state. As well as being socially liberal and pro immigration.
It may be therefore you are not as libertarian as Bart, however Truss certainly is a libertarian
Where were the tax cuts for the poor? Where is the pro-immigration and socially liberal stance?
She has always voted in favour of mass surveillance of people's communications and activities She has always voted in favour of the retention of people's data by the state. She has always voted in favour of stricter immigration laws
She has voted favour of increasing VAT, increasing tax on flights, and increasing duty on alcohol.
She votes for reducing taxes on companies and the rich and increasing them on the poor.
Some libertarian.
There were tax cuts for everyone.
As for her voting record as a minister, she was a minister. We should judge her by what she does as leader.
I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.
I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.
It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.
EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.
Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
I don't think that is a surprise, it is what I would expect. People tend to be against benefits being too high and also very high earners.
Reality of course is the 45% tax issues wasn't in itself important, but it was the optics that were awful. Similarly people are against benefits going up too much but it is still immoral not to keep benefits in line with cost of living as otherwise you put some people in to poverty.
Part of the problem is that people still hear “benefits” and think of someone who is not in work. Whereas in reality the lion’s share of what the government calls benefits is actually the state pension and the lion’s share of the remainder is going to people working in low paid jobs.
Braverman is now going after people on benefits . More stick and less carrot is needed according to the witch . She manages to top the charts for most disgusting and despicable cabinet member .
Too many foreign students coming into the UK - Suella Braverman
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been speaking at a Telegraph fringe event at the Tory Party Conference and we've been bringing you some of her key comments here.
In the last hour, she said she thinks "too many students" are coming into the UK who are "frankly propping up substandard courses in inadequate institutions". She said this after claiming "net migration needs to come down".
"I think poor universities are being bankrolled by foreign students and I would really like to see that number come down."
She said the UK was seeing "quite a large number" of foreign students bringing in their family members.
When asked if she feels anything stopping others coming into the country as her parents are from Mauritius and Kenya, she said: "I have no qualms about that".
She added that she "delights" in annoying the left.
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
Well he has never rebelled in a vote. Which, given the huge variance of party leaders his party have had since he came into Parliament in 2005 doesn't really endear him to me.
He looks generally to be quite socially conservative and views the poor as something to be endured and kept in their place (at least based on his voting record).
He might be a safe pair of hands but I am not a fan of his political positions nor his lack of backbone.
Yes but you are a libertarian so will obviously be more sympathetic to Truss than an alternative leader.
Nope. I was arguing against Truss since the start of the process.
And Truss is not a Libertarian. She is a classic Tory - tax cuts for your rich mates and fuck the rest of the country. If anyone should be delighted with her it is you. She is a classic Tory wet dream.
I would take Wallace any day over Truss or Johnson. But unlike you with your 'my party right or wrong' approach I am willing to recognise the failings as well as the benefits of the various potential party leaders.
No she isn't, she is not a traditional monarchist nor One Nation Tory.
By definition libertarianism means tax cuts for the rich as much as the poor while slashing the size of the state. As well as being socially liberal and pro immigration.
It may be therefore you are not as libertarian as Bart, however Truss certainly is a libertarian
Where were the tax cuts for the poor? Where is the pro-immigration and socially liberal stance?
She has always voted in favour of mass surveillance of people's communications and activities She has always voted in favour of the retention of people's data by the state. She has always voted in favour of stricter immigration laws
She has voted favour of increasing VAT, increasing tax on flights, and increasing duty on alcohol.
She votes for reducing taxes on companies and the rich and increasing them on the poor.
Some libertarian.
The basic rate of income tax was cut as well as the higher rate and NI and corporation tax.
Truss is relaxed on sexuality and pro LGBT, attending the LGBT Tory curry at conference for example.
She is proposing an amended data protection law.
She is the most libertarian PM we have ever had and likely ever will have on current polls, so enjoy it while you can because you won't get another PM as close to libertarianism as this one!
Income Tax down by 1% Employee National Insurance down by 1.25% Employers National Insurance (which feeds through to poor but not minimum wage workers wages too) down by 1.25%
So that is 2.25% excluding Employers NI, plus a further 1.25% if you include Employers NI for poor workers.
And poor people are more likely to get their income from PAYE NI work than non-NI means.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
It sounds like they were arresting her? Which means they would presumbly have had an arrest warrant.
They wouldn’t have needed a separate warrant to search the premises in that case: An arrest warrant is sufficient to enforce entry to the premises. They are permitted to search the home of the target of an arrest warrant if that is the location where the arrest happens for evidence related to the offense & can seize any relevant property.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
It sounds like they were arresting her? Which means they would presumbly have had an arrest warrant.
They wouldn’t have needed a separate warrant to search the premises in that case: An arrest warrant is sufficient to enforce entry to the premises. Once there they are permitted to search the home of the target of an arrest warrant to look for evidence related to the offense & can seize any relevant property.
According to her she asked if they had a warrant, and was told "we don't need a warrant" and he forced his way in, arrested her, and seized her property.
Absolutely if they have a warrant, then fair enough, but if there's no warrant then that is completely unacceptable behaviour and "we didn't beat you up" is not good enough a line to be drawn for how the Police should behave.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
No one has suggested getting involved in a nuclear war. What has been said is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons then we should respond with conventional attacks on their forces. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And Putin may well then also decide to respond with nuclear weapons on us if we sink his fleet and directly attack his troops
Our responses cannot and should not be dictated by what Putin might do if he has already initiated a nuclear attack. If we do not respond proportionately and just roll over then he certainly will use nukes again.
By the way, as I remember you were claiming we should not get involved even if he attacks a NATO country (as long as it was an Eastern NATO country). So I hardly think you can be considered to be a reasonable commentator on this issue.
Too many foreign students coming into the UK - Suella Braverman
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been speaking at a Telegraph fringe event at the Tory Party Conference and we've been bringing you some of her key comments here.
In the last hour, she said she thinks "too many students" are coming into the UK who are "frankly propping up substandard courses in inadequate institutions". She said this after claiming "net migration needs to come down".
"I think poor universities are being bankrolled by foreign students and I would really like to see that number come down."
She said the UK was seeing "quite a large number" of foreign students bringing in their family members.
When asked if she feels anything stopping others coming into the country as her parents are from Mauritius and Kenya, she said: "I have no qualms about that".
She added that she "delights" in annoying the left.
Working in such an institution - these students are propping us up, but only because funding has flatlined. Lots of unis would love to focus more on home students, but unless government funds higher education beyond the student loan, the only students unis can squeeze for more money are international ones. Increasing student loans is obviously unpopular, but just funding unis better would be good.
Also, students don't tend to bring family, and if they do stay it is because they've applied to in our current system - otherwise the unis are obligated to make sure they return home.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
No one has suggested getting involved in a nuclear war. What has been said is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons then we should respond with conventional attacks on their forces. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And Putin may well then also decide to respond with nuclear weapons on us if we sink his fleet and directly attack his troops
Our responses cannot and should not be dictated by what Putin might do if he has already initiated a nuclear attack. If we do not respond proportionately and just roll over then he certainly will use nukes again.
By the way, as I remember you were claiming we should not get involved even if he attacks a NATO country (as long as it was an Eastern NATO country). So I hardly think you can be considered to be a reasonable commentator on this issue.
I am afraid they must be unless you want to be evaporated in a nuclear holocaust.
I never once said we should not get involved if he attacks a NATO country, I said I was not 100% sure Biden for example would go to war with Russia if say Estonia was invaded
Braverman is now going after people on benefits . More stick and less carrot is needed according to the witch . She manages to top the charts for most disgusting and despicable cabinet member .
Anyway: the Tory party conference. An event so cracked that Michael Gove can credibly turn up to it and act like it’s on drugs. Gove is doing more gigs than Ed Sheeran at the Birmingham gathering, but Truss’s cabinet is already nearing the “separate limos” stage of a monster band’s implosion. Be advised this is a conclave that a huge number of Conservative members of parliament found simply too distasteful to attend. Which certainly puts things into perspective. I’m trying to picture a Star Wars spinoff in which the rebel alliance was run by Gove and Grant Shapps, and it’s possible even Disney+ wouldn’t make it. Which, again, certainly puts things into perspective. Priti Patel is now spoken of as some kind of grandee. Which certainly takes perspective, and does something absolutely unmentionable with it.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
No one has suggested getting involved in a nuclear war. What has been said is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons then we should respond with conventional attacks on their forces. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And Putin may well then also decide to respond with nuclear weapons on us if we sink his fleet and directly attack his troops
Our responses cannot and should not be dictated by what Putin might do if he has already initiated a nuclear attack. If we do not respond proportionately and just roll over then he certainly will use nukes again.
By the way, as I remember you were claiming we should not get involved even if he attacks a NATO country (as long as it was an Eastern NATO country). So I hardly think you can be considered to be a reasonable commentator on this issue.
I am afraid they must be unless you want to be evaporated in a nuclear holocaust.
I never once said we should not get involved if he attacks a NATO country, I said I was not 100% sure Biden for example would go to war with Russia if say Estonia was invaded
If you want to avoid a nuclear holocaust then we need to ensure there is no nuclear escalation, which means saying (and meaning) we will respond in kind if there is one.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Prevent Russia from using nukes and there's no nuclear holocaust.
Too many foreign students coming into the UK - Suella Braverman
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been speaking at a Telegraph fringe event at the Tory Party Conference and we've been bringing you some of her key comments here.
In the last hour, she said she thinks "too many students" are coming into the UK who are "frankly propping up substandard courses in inadequate institutions". She said this after claiming "net migration needs to come down".
"I think poor universities are being bankrolled by foreign students and I would really like to see that number come down."
She said the UK was seeing "quite a large number" of foreign students bringing in their family members.
When asked if she feels anything stopping others coming into the country as her parents are from Mauritius and Kenya, she said: "I have no qualms about that".
She added that she "delights" in annoying the left.
Working in such an institution - these students are propping us up, but only because funding has flatlined. Lots of unis would love to focus more on home students, but unless government funds higher education beyond the student loan, the only students unis can squeeze for more money are international ones. Increasing student loans is obviously unpopular, but just funding unis better would be good.
Also, students don't tend to bring family, and if they do stay it is because they've applied to in our current system - otherwise the unis are obligated to make sure they return home.
Does seem an area where the market should decide? If overseas students want to pay top money for substandard courses in inadequate institutions then surely we let them crack on? Competition will mean that only the best courses and institutions survive.
(Our uni has historically sucked somewhat at attracting international students, by the standards of near peer institutions. Maybe we don't offer enough substandard courses... Did however leave us far less exposed to drops in numbers during Covid).
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
It sounds like they were arresting her? Which means they would presumbly have had an arrest warrant.
They wouldn’t have needed a separate warrant to search the premises in that case: An arrest warrant is sufficient to enforce entry to the premises. Once there they are permitted to search the home of the target of an arrest warrant to look for evidence related to the offense & can seize any relevant property.
According to her she asked if they had a warrant, and was told "we don't need a warrant" and he forced his way in, arrested her, and seized her property.
Absolutely if they have a warrant, then fair enough, but if there's no warrant then that is completely unacceptable behaviour and "we didn't beat you up" is not good enough a line to be drawn for how the Police should behave.
I would not trust every detail of her story personally. It contains internal contradictions & she was clearly under a lot of stress.
But it seems that she was read her rights, taken to the station, processed, interviewed & then released. That sounds like an arrest & if so the police had the right to search her home (if that is where she was arrested) and seize any relevant materials.
They don’t need a separate search warrant to do so & it may well be that when she challenged the officer, they may have thought she meant “do you have a search warrant?” to which the straight answer, if she was being arrested, would have been “no, but we don’t need one”.
The international gas price seems to be down quite a bit today. (Edit, yesterday.)
This and the collapse in global logistics costs (and relative stabilisation of the oil price) imply deflation down the track. Interesting that the wholesale gas price continues to fall despite the Nordstream sabotage.
Mild and quite windy weather for at least the next couple of weeks across Europe is good news in the short term. Bad news for Russia's balance of payments, alongside the massive withdrawal of Rubles from their banking system by people fleeing conscription.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
As HYUFD says: 1- Blockade/isolation. The traditional remedy for those breaking a huge taboo. And way beyond these sanctions; we're talking imposed Juche. 2 - NATO enforces a no-fly zone over Ukraine and NATO personnel head in, carrying out support roles (and medical assistance for those affected). And we make Putin well aware of this. Any attack on any NATO personnel is a tripwire, as before. 3 - Carrier Battle Group heads to the Eastern Med. Ready to take action if necessary.
Those look like sensible steps, with Putin warned that another nuke means NATO go in with full conventional force into Ukraine. And help push him out to the borders of Russia - and no further.
Always a further step for NATO to escalate further.
My understanding is that the Russian military have been given very clear assurances by their US counterparts, that any attempt to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine would result in very grave retribution by NATO. The options include, (a) destroying every Russian airbase in Crimea and in parts of Russia bordering Ukraine and Belarus (b) destruction of the Russian Baltic fleet, (c) thousands of NATO soldiers entering the conflict in Ukraine.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
No one has suggested getting involved in a nuclear war. What has been said is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons then we should respond with conventional attacks on their forces. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And Putin may well then also decide to respond with nuclear weapons on us if we sink his fleet and directly attack his troops
Our responses cannot and should not be dictated by what Putin might do if he has already initiated a nuclear attack. If we do not respond proportionately and just roll over then he certainly will use nukes again.
By the way, as I remember you were claiming we should not get involved even if he attacks a NATO country (as long as it was an Eastern NATO country). So I hardly think you can be considered to be a reasonable commentator on this issue.
I am afraid they must be unless you want to be evaporated in a nuclear holocaust.
I never once said we should not get involved if he attacks a NATO country, I said I was not 100% sure Biden for example would go to war with Russia if say Estonia was invaded
If you want to avoid a nuclear holocaust then we need to ensure there is no nuclear escalation, which means saying (and meaning) we will respond in kind if there is one.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Prevent Russia from using nukes and there's no nuclear holocaust.
Only if a NATO nation is attacked.
You can't prevent Putin from using nukes unless we go to war with Russia and that should only be done as a last resort to defend NATO as that then makes us a target for Russian nuclear missiles too
Too many foreign students coming into the UK - Suella Braverman
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been speaking at a Telegraph fringe event at the Tory Party Conference and we've been bringing you some of her key comments here.
In the last hour, she said she thinks "too many students" are coming into the UK who are "frankly propping up substandard courses in inadequate institutions". She said this after claiming "net migration needs to come down".
"I think poor universities are being bankrolled by foreign students and I would really like to see that number come down."
She said the UK was seeing "quite a large number" of foreign students bringing in their family members.
When asked if she feels anything stopping others coming into the country as her parents are from Mauritius and Kenya, she said: "I have no qualms about that".
She added that she "delights" in annoying the left.
Working in such an institution - these students are propping us up, but only because funding has flatlined. Lots of unis would love to focus more on home students, but unless government funds higher education beyond the student loan, the only students unis can squeeze for more money are international ones. Increasing student loans is obviously unpopular, but just funding unis better would be good.
Also, students don't tend to bring family, and if they do stay it is because they've applied to in our current system - otherwise the unis are obligated to make sure they return home.
Under Gordon Brown, Oxford was just stopped from doing the following - opening a new college for foreign students on vast fees, only. The idea was top notch everything, including staff. The idea came from the vast number of students who are qualified to go to Oxford they turn away every year.
Apparently, some in the government were not happy with the optics of Oxford University becoming majority rich fee payers...
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Swatting can be extremely dangerous for the target. People have died.
It’s far more than merely wasting police time.
(The danger level probably depends on the degree to which the local police force is willing to shoot first and answer questions later though. UK police are relatively restrained on this scale, Parts of the US, not so much.)
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
No one has suggested getting involved in a nuclear war. What has been said is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons then we should respond with conventional attacks on their forces. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And Putin may well then also decide to respond with nuclear weapons on us if we sink his fleet and directly attack his troops
Our responses cannot and should not be dictated by what Putin might do if he has already initiated a nuclear attack. If we do not respond proportionately and just roll over then he certainly will use nukes again.
By the way, as I remember you were claiming we should not get involved even if he attacks a NATO country (as long as it was an Eastern NATO country). So I hardly think you can be considered to be a reasonable commentator on this issue.
I am afraid they must be unless you want to be evaporated in a nuclear holocaust.
I never once said we should not get involved if he attacks a NATO country, I said I was not 100% sure Biden for example would go to war with Russia if say Estonia was invaded
If you want to avoid a nuclear holocaust then we need to ensure there is no nuclear escalation, which means saying (and meaning) we will respond in kind if there is one.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Prevent Russia from using nukes and there's no nuclear holocaust.
Only if a NATO nation is attacked.
You can't prevent Putin from using nukes unless we go to war with Russia and that should only be done as a last resort to defend NATO
You can prevent him from using nukes if you threaten him with retaliation if he does and that should be done to prevent nuclear aggression, not just to defend NATO.
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
Well he has never rebelled in a vote. Which, given the huge variance of party leaders his party have had since he came into Parliament in 2005 doesn't really endear him to me.
He looks generally to be quite socially conservative and views the poor as something to be endured and kept in their place (at least based on his voting record).
He might be a safe pair of hands but I am not a fan of his political positions nor his lack of backbone.
Yes but you are a libertarian so will obviously be more sympathetic to Truss than an alternative leader.
Nope. I was arguing against Truss since the start of the process.
And Truss is not a Libertarian. She is a classic Tory - tax cuts for your rich mates and fuck the rest of the country. If anyone should be delighted with her it is you. She is a classic Tory wet dream.
I would take Wallace any day over Truss or Johnson. But unlike you with your 'my party right or wrong' approach I am willing to recognise the failings as well as the benefits of the various potential party leaders.
No she isn't, she is not a traditional monarchist nor One Nation Tory.
By definition libertarianism means tax cuts for the rich as much as the poor while slashing the size of the state. As well as being socially liberal and pro immigration.
It may be therefore you are not as libertarian as Bart, however Truss certainly is a libertarian
Where were the tax cuts for the poor? Where is the pro-immigration and socially liberal stance?
She has always voted in favour of mass surveillance of people's communications and activities She has always voted in favour of the retention of people's data by the state. She has always voted in favour of stricter immigration laws
She has voted favour of increasing VAT, increasing tax on flights, and increasing duty on alcohol.
She votes for reducing taxes on companies and the rich and increasing them on the poor.
Some libertarian.
The basic rate of income tax was cut as well as the higher rate and NI and corporation tax.
Truss is relaxed on sexuality and pro LGBT, attending the LGBT Tory curry at conference for example.
She is proposing an amended data protection law.
She is the most libertarian PM we have ever had and likely ever will have on current polls, so enjoy it while you can because you won't get another PM as close to libertarianism as this one!
It would be somewhat hypocritical of Truss if she were not relaxed on sexuality.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Treasury sources say it’s Nov 23 until it isn’t. They’re “considering” bringing forward but no firm date. Issue with this position is hinting at bringing forward plan was done to reassure markets - ‘we get it’. Uncertainty is the last thing they want.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
Working with moderate leavers was pointless given that it was not the moderates who were making any of the decisions. And we have never been a country that said that if you lost you had to shut up and be happy.
I disagreed then and still disagree with the attempts by the Remainers to overturn the result. But I certainly don't extend that to believing they should just stop talking about it nor point up the failures when they occur.
It only wasn't the moderates making the decisions because the former Remainers missed their chance immediately after the referendum. If Cameron had stayed rather than flouncing, it would certainly have helped - but by the time May took office, the former Remainers had vacated the playing field leaving her, and subsequently Boris, having to get through a form of Brexit that satisfied the headbangers because the alternative - overturning the referendum result - was impossible.
May WAS a Remainer. Sadly she turned out to be even more of a hard Brexit nutjob than many of the Leavers.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
Working with moderate leavers was pointless given that it was not the moderates who were making any of the decisions. And we have never been a country that said that if you lost you had to shut up and be happy.
I disagreed then and still disagree with the attempts by the Remainers to overturn the result. But I certainly don't extend that to believing they should just stop talking about it nor point up the failures when they occur.
It only wasn't the moderates making the decisions because the former Remainers missed their chance immediately after the referendum. If Cameron had stayed rather than flouncing, it would certainly have helped - but by the time May took office, the former Remainers had vacated the playing field leaving her, and subsequently Boris, having to get through a form of Brexit that satisfied the headbangers because the alternative - overturning the referendum result - was impossible.
May WAS a Remainer. Sadly she turned out to be even more of a hard Brexit nutjob than many of the Leavers.
May never "got" Brexit. She was an anti-immigration xenophobic Remainer, who viewed Brexit solely through the prism of anti-immigration.
One thing that got me to switch from Remain to Leave was a conversation you and I had about trade where you convinced me that we could get better trade deals outside the Customs Union, like the other EEA nations have. Truss who also voted Remain seems to also get that, May did not, she just made it about immigration, immigration, immigration.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Swatting can be extremely dangerous for the target. People have died.
It’s far more than merely wasting police time.
(The danger level probably depends on the degree to which the local police force is willing to shoot first and answer questions later though. UK police are relatively restrained on this scale, Parts of the US, not so much.)
I recall one story from the states where a former special forces soldier was reprimanded, as a police trainee, for not being aggressive enough with the "clients"
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
If she’s been arrested under suspicion of an indictable offense, then yes, absolutely.
In that situation, you bring someone in to a controlled environment where they can be interviewed alongside their solicitor if they wish (and you always want a solicitor) & that interview recorded according to the PACE guidelines. You do this both for the integrity of the investigation & the safety of everyone involved: the investigating officers, the suspect & their lawyer.
Someones home is a totally inappropriate place to interview someone who is being formally investigated by the state under suspicion of having carried out a criminial offense: There are so many ways that could go horribly wrong for everyone involved.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Detonation of the tactical nuke - that remains the trigger. I would expect at least a day or two while NATO prepares a response. They are not currently in theatre. That would be the time to go.
Treasury sources say it’s Nov 23 until it isn’t. They’re “considering” bringing forward but no firm date. Issue with this position is hinting at bringing forward plan was done to reassure markets - ‘we get it’. Uncertainty is the last thing they want.
Do we actually have a proper, functioning government right now? Because from where I’m sitting nobody can explain government policy clearly, MPs and cabinet members seem to be going off piste at alarming rates, and the PM can’t confirm she has confidence in her Chancellor.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
It sounds like they were arresting her? Which means they would presumbly have had an arrest warrant.
They wouldn’t have needed a separate warrant to search the premises in that case: An arrest warrant is sufficient to enforce entry to the premises. Once there they are permitted to search the home of the target of an arrest warrant to look for evidence related to the offense & can seize any relevant property.
According to her she asked if they had a warrant, and was told "we don't need a warrant" and he forced his way in, arrested her, and seized her property.
Absolutely if they have a warrant, then fair enough, but if there's no warrant then that is completely unacceptable behaviour and "we didn't beat you up" is not good enough a line to be drawn for how the Police should behave.
I would not trust every detail of her story personally. It contains internal contradictions & she was clearly under a lot of stress.
But it seems that she was read her rights, taken to the station, processed, interviewed & then released. That sounds like an arrest & if so the police had the right to search her home (if that is where she was arrested) and seize any relevant materials.
They don’t need a separate search warrant to do so & it may well be that when she challenged the officer, they may have thought she meant “do you have a search warrant?” to which the straight answer, if she was being arrested, would have been “no, but we don’t need one”.
whether the police did this by their current protocols or not , it seems outlandishly OTT and intrusive for a social media post of some kind to result in this . The law is a bit of a mess in this respect
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Mr. 43, it's like the Chancellor was trying to think of the most pathetic yet also aggravating possible excuse.
"I know, the beloved monarch of 70 years for whom there was a massive outpouring of admiration and grief only a couple of weeks ago. She's the perfect scapegoat for me scaring the markets!"
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
No one has suggested getting involved in a nuclear war. What has been said is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons then we should respond with conventional attacks on their forces. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And Putin may well then also decide to respond with nuclear weapons on us if we sink his fleet and directly attack his troops
Our responses cannot and should not be dictated by what Putin might do if he has already initiated a nuclear attack. If we do not respond proportionately and just roll over then he certainly will use nukes again.
By the way, as I remember you were claiming we should not get involved even if he attacks a NATO country (as long as it was an Eastern NATO country). So I hardly think you can be considered to be a reasonable commentator on this issue.
I am afraid they must be unless you want to be evaporated in a nuclear holocaust.
I never once said we should not get involved if he attacks a NATO country, I said I was not 100% sure Biden for example would go to war with Russia if say Estonia was invaded
If you want to avoid a nuclear holocaust then we need to ensure there is no nuclear escalation, which means saying (and meaning) we will respond in kind if there is one.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Prevent Russia from using nukes and there's no nuclear holocaust.
Only if a NATO nation is attacked.
You can't prevent Putin from using nukes unless we go to war with Russia and that should only be done as a last resort to defend NATO
You can prevent him from using nukes if you threaten him with retaliation if he does and that should be done to prevent nuclear aggression, not just to defend NATO.
That might work for a sane leader, Putin is not sane at the moment and if he thinks he faces total defeat in Ukraine he has already made clear he would use a tactical nuclear weapon
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
You can prevent him from using nukes if you threaten him with retaliation if he does and that should be done to prevent nuclear aggression, not just to defend NATO.
That might work for a sane leader, Putin is not sane at the moment and if he thinks he faces total defeat in Ukraine he has already made clear he would use a tactical nuclear weapon
Priti Patel is asked at Conservative Voice event if the party should get a new leader. She says “we have just done all of that. Nothing would be more divisive for the party and the country” https://twitter.com/BBCHelenCatt/status/1577293230487527426
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Detonation of the tactical nuke - that remains the trigger. I would expect at least a day or two while NATO prepares a response. They are not currently in theatre. That would be the time to go.
The use of a tactical nuclear weapon is not going to alter the position in Russia's favour.
You can prevent him from using nukes if you threaten him with retaliation if he does and that should be done to prevent nuclear aggression, not just to defend NATO.
That might work for a sane leader, Putin is not sane at the moment and if he thinks he faces total defeat in Ukraine he has already made clear he would use a tactical nuclear weapon
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
The doneness of Brexit is a particularly useless discussion. Unfortunately no-one has any interest in addressing the consequences of Brexit, once the decision was made. Leavers didn't vote Leave to make things worse and won't engage on how to limit the damage; Remainers didn't vote for the mess in the first place and don't think it's their problem to fix.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
Treasury sources say it’s Nov 23 until it isn’t. They’re “considering” bringing forward but no firm date. Issue with this position is hinting at bringing forward plan was done to reassure markets - ‘we get it’. Uncertainty is the last thing they want.
Do we actually have a proper, functioning government right now? Because from where I’m sitting nobody can explain government policy clearly, MPs and cabinet members seem to be going off piste at alarming rates, and the PM can’t confirm she has confidence in her Chancellor.
Get rid. Now.
It’s astonishing, we’re back in similar territory to the weird Parliament days in mid 2019, except that was with a Tory government propped up by DUP C+S and not a stonking majority.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Justine Roberts (Mumsnet founder) had armed police at her door at 3am because someone had called claiming to be her & that there was a gunman prowling around the house back in 2015. That’s swatting.
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
No one has suggested getting involved in a nuclear war. What has been said is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons then we should respond with conventional attacks on their forces. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And Putin may well then also decide to respond with nuclear weapons on us if we sink his fleet and directly attack his troops
Our responses cannot and should not be dictated by what Putin might do if he has already initiated a nuclear attack. If we do not respond proportionately and just roll over then he certainly will use nukes again.
By the way, as I remember you were claiming we should not get involved even if he attacks a NATO country (as long as it was an Eastern NATO country). So I hardly think you can be considered to be a reasonable commentator on this issue.
I am afraid they must be unless you want to be evaporated in a nuclear holocaust.
I never once said we should not get involved if he attacks a NATO country, I said I was not 100% sure Biden for example would go to war with Russia if say Estonia was invaded
If you want to avoid a nuclear holocaust then we need to ensure there is no nuclear escalation, which means saying (and meaning) we will respond in kind if there is one.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Prevent Russia from using nukes and there's no nuclear holocaust.
Only if a NATO nation is attacked.
You can't prevent Putin from using nukes unless we go to war with Russia and that should only be done as a last resort to defend NATO
You can prevent him from using nukes if you threaten him with retaliation if he does and that should be done to prevent nuclear aggression, not just to defend NATO.
That might work for a sane leader, Putin is not sane at the moment and if he thinks he faces total defeat in Ukraine he has already made clear he would use a tactical nuclear weapon
If Putin has gone insane and wants to start nuclear Armageddon then its on Russians to intervene and stop him, not on us to not respond to his nuclear aggression.
The only way to prevent a nuclear holocaust is to prevent any nuclear aggression. That's worked for over 70 years, the USA didn't even nuke the Vietcong when they were humiliated and faced total defeated in Vietnam. If Russia are defeated they need to withdraw, not start global nuclear war, just as the US withdrew from Vietnam.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Yes through blockades and isolation, not involving ourselves in nuclear war unless as a last resort if a NATO nation attacked
No one has suggested getting involved in a nuclear war. What has been said is that if the Russians use nuclear weapons then we should respond with conventional attacks on their forces. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
And Putin may well then also decide to respond with nuclear weapons on us if we sink his fleet and directly attack his troops
Our responses cannot and should not be dictated by what Putin might do if he has already initiated a nuclear attack. If we do not respond proportionately and just roll over then he certainly will use nukes again.
By the way, as I remember you were claiming we should not get involved even if he attacks a NATO country (as long as it was an Eastern NATO country). So I hardly think you can be considered to be a reasonable commentator on this issue.
I am afraid they must be unless you want to be evaporated in a nuclear holocaust.
I never once said we should not get involved if he attacks a NATO country, I said I was not 100% sure Biden for example would go to war with Russia if say Estonia was invaded
If you want to avoid a nuclear holocaust then we need to ensure there is no nuclear escalation, which means saying (and meaning) we will respond in kind if there is one.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Prevent Russia from using nukes and there's no nuclear holocaust.
Only if a NATO nation is attacked.
You can't prevent Putin from using nukes unless we go to war with Russia and that should only be done as a last resort to defend NATO
You can prevent him from using nukes if you threaten him with retaliation if he does and that should be done to prevent nuclear aggression, not just to defend NATO.
That might work for a sane leader, Putin is not sane at the moment and if he thinks he faces total defeat in Ukraine he has already made clear he would use a tactical nuclear weapon
If Putin has gone insane and wants to start nuclear Armageddon then its on Russians to intervene and stop him, not on us to not respond to his nuclear aggression.
The only way to prevent a nuclear holocaust is to prevent any nuclear aggression. That's worked for over 70 years, the USA didn't even nuke the Vietcong when they were humiliated and faced total defeated in Vietnam. If Russia are defeated they need to withdraw, not start global nuclear war, just as the US withdrew from Vietnam.
Comments
The critical thing about those auditing vids is that they are filming in public which is perfectly legal (and the MPS have a statement to that effect on their website) but the police often think in itself is grounds to search the auditors under S.43 of the Terrorism Act.
And that's aside from the more egregious behaviour which is often seen (and of course welcomed by the auditors I'm sure as it is good clickbait).
IANAL but from what I can see filming in public even if the subject is a police station isn't necessarily grounds in itself to invoke S.43.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
I disagreed then and still disagree with the attempts by the Remainers to overturn the result. But I certainly don't extend that to believing they should just stop talking about it nor point up the failures when they occur.
What I would want for most interactions with the Police is a polite knock on the door, a polite request to come to the station or if now is not convenient a request to arrange a time to do so, or the Police first to require a warrant if property is being seized.
I should hope we would hold our Police to a higher standard than "well they didn't murder you or beat you up, so what are you complaining about?"
"It’s becoming clear that we are facing a choice between being electorally killed in a disaster worse than 1997 under Liz Truss, or changing course"
Story from @adampayne26
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/conservative-rebels-to-discuss-ousting-liz-truss-amid-growing-tory-tension
By definition libertarianism means tax cuts for the rich as much as the poor while slashing the size of the state. As well as being socially liberal and pro immigration.
It may be therefore you are not as libertarian as Bart, however Truss certainly is a libertarian
To deny people with one particular political opinion from expressing that opinion is a bizarre position to take for someone on PB of all websites. We remainers accept that we lost. It doesn't float my boat to campaign for a new vote as it would be hugely disruptive but there would be nothing undemocratic about campaigning for one and who knows maybe a party will spring up and do just that.
But I suppose @Driver is young and his views will develop as he grows older.
I will vote for a party, or support a leader, only for as long as I think they are doing the right thing. If I no longer think that, I will stop supporting them, as I did with Boris.
If Truss were to reverse course on tax cuts, abandon planning reform etc, etc then I would no longer have a reason to support her or her party.
One might forgive Ukrainians laughing bitterly at that given its territorial integrity, upon surrendering its nukes, was guaranteed by countries including Russia.
2 - NATO enforces a no-fly zone over Ukraine and NATO personnel head in, carrying out support roles (and medical assistance for those affected). And we make Putin well aware of this. Any attack on any NATO personnel is a tripwire, as before.
3 - Carrier Battle Group heads to the Eastern Med. Ready to take action if necessary.
Those look like sensible steps, with Putin warned that another nuke means NATO go in with full conventional force into Ukraine. And help push him out to the borders of Russia - and no further.
Always a further step for NATO to escalate further.
I think not bringing forward the date of his statement has indeed brought forward the date of his departure...
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11252515/Ukraine-war-end-Putin-deposed-Russia-broken-up.html
A first step response is in my view not a military one. It is one that brings (hopefully) the whole world community with it and should be an economic and political one.
Damn DM and their clickbait.
(Edit, yesterday.)
She has always voted in favour of mass surveillance of people's communications and activities
She has always voted in favour of the retention of people's data by the state.
She has always voted in favour of stricter immigration laws
She has voted favour of increasing VAT, increasing tax on flights, and increasing duty on alcohol.
She votes for reducing taxes on companies and the rich and increasing them on the poor.
Some libertarian.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
It's not as though India, Pakistan, Israel, or even North Korea have suffered in any way through refusing to follow the NPT.
So - follow the NPT and be victims. Break it and be safe. Simple equation - IF Putin benefits from nuking someone.
As for her voting record as a minister, she was a minister. We should judge her by what she does as leader.
Braverman and Clarke attacking chancellor and PM's decision to U-turn on 45p rate.
Mordaunt breaking ranks to demand benefits are increased by inflation.
Total chaos.
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1577285424191795200
https://twitter.com/SimonClarkeMP/status/1577272125509218305
Too many foreign students coming into the UK - Suella Braverman
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been speaking at a Telegraph fringe event at the Tory Party Conference and we've been bringing you some of her key comments here.
In the last hour, she said she thinks "too many students" are coming into the UK who are "frankly propping up substandard courses in inadequate institutions". She said this after claiming "net migration needs to come down".
"I think poor universities are being bankrolled by foreign students and I would really like to see that number come down."
She said the UK was seeing "quite a large number" of foreign students bringing in their family members.
When asked if she feels anything stopping others coming into the country as her parents are from Mauritius and Kenya, she said: "I have no qualms about that".
She added that she "delights" in annoying the left.
Truss is relaxing immigration rules.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/24/liz-truss-plans-to-loosen-immigration-rules-to-boost-uk-economy
Truss is relaxed on sexuality and pro LGBT, attending the LGBT Tory curry at conference for example.
She is proposing an amended data protection law.
She is the most libertarian PM we have ever had and likely ever will have on current polls, so enjoy it while you can because you won't get another PM as close to libertarianism as this one!
Employee National Insurance down by 1.25%
Employers National Insurance (which feeds through to poor but not minimum wage workers wages too) down by 1.25%
So that is 2.25% excluding Employers NI, plus a further 1.25% if you include Employers NI for poor workers.
And poor people are more likely to get their income from PAYE NI work than non-NI means.
They wouldn’t have needed a separate warrant to search the premises in that case: An arrest warrant is sufficient to enforce entry to the premises. They are permitted to search the home of the target of an arrest warrant if that is the location where the arrest happens for evidence related to the offense & can seize any relevant property.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Blaming the late monarch for him ****ing a Budget... what a prick.
Absolutely if they have a warrant, then fair enough, but if there's no warrant then that is completely unacceptable behaviour and "we didn't beat you up" is not good enough a line to be drawn for how the Police should behave.
By the way, as I remember you were claiming we should not get involved even if he attacks a NATO country (as long as it was an Eastern NATO country). So I hardly think you can be considered to be a reasonable commentator on this issue.
Also, students don't tend to bring family, and if they do stay it is because they've applied to in our current system - otherwise the unis are obligated to make sure they return home.
I never once said we should not get involved if he attacks a NATO country, I said I was not 100% sure Biden for example would go to war with Russia if say Estonia was invaded
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Prevent Russia from using nukes and there's no nuclear holocaust.
(Our uni has historically sucked somewhat at attracting international students, by the standards of near peer institutions. Maybe we don't offer enough substandard courses... Did however leave us far less exposed to drops in numbers during Covid).
But it seems that she was read her rights, taken to the station, processed, interviewed & then released. That sounds like an arrest & if so the police had the right to search her home (if that is where she was arrested) and seize any relevant materials.
They don’t need a separate search warrant to do so & it may well be that when she challenged the officer, they may have thought she meant “do you have a search warrant?” to which the straight answer, if she was being arrested, would have been “no, but we don’t need one”.
Mild and quite windy weather for at least the next couple of weeks across Europe is good news in the short term. Bad news for Russia's balance of payments, alongside the massive withdrawal of Rubles from their banking system by people fleeing conscription.
You can't prevent Putin from using nukes unless we go to war with Russia and that should only be done as a last resort to defend NATO as that then makes us a target for Russian nuclear missiles too
Apparently, some in the government were not happy with the optics of Oxford University becoming majority rich fee payers...
It’s far more than merely wasting police time.
(The danger level probably depends on the degree to which the local police force is willing to shoot first and answer questions later though. UK police are relatively restrained on this scale, Parts of the US, not so much.)
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1577289371790835713
https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1577278229878013953
One thing that got me to switch from Remain to Leave was a conversation you and I had about trade where you convinced me that we could get better trade deals outside the Customs Union, like the other EEA nations have. Truss who also voted Remain seems to also get that, May did not, she just made it about immigration, immigration, immigration.
In that situation, you bring someone in to a controlled environment where they can be interviewed alongside their solicitor if they wish (and you always want a solicitor) & that interview recorded according to the PACE guidelines. You do this both for the integrity of the investigation & the safety of everyone involved: the investigating officers, the suspect & their lawyer.
Someones home is a totally inappropriate place to interview someone who is being formally investigated by the state under suspicion of having carried out a criminial offense: There are so many ways that could go horribly wrong for everyone involved.
She died at the wrong moment apparently.
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1577292545272565764
Do we actually have a proper, functioning government right now? Because from where I’m sitting nobody can explain government policy clearly, MPs and cabinet members seem to be going off piste at alarming rates, and the PM can’t confirm she has confidence in her Chancellor.
Get rid. Now.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
"I know, the beloved monarch of 70 years for whom there was a massive outpouring of admiration and grief only a couple of weeks ago. She's the perfect scapegoat for me scaring the markets!"
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Priti Patel is asked at Conservative Voice event if the party should get a new leader. She says “we have just done all of that. Nothing would be more divisive for the party and the country”
https://twitter.com/BBCHelenCatt/status/1577293230487527426
He now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia
So we just argue.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33985706
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
The only way to prevent a nuclear holocaust is to prevent any nuclear aggression. That's worked for over 70 years, the USA didn't even nuke the Vietcong when they were humiliated and faced total defeated in Vietnam. If Russia are defeated they need to withdraw, not start global nuclear war, just as the US withdrew from Vietnam.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.