I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Do you think the Russians would stop there?
I am sure factions within Russia would want to carry on invading places, and other factions would want to consolidate its gains. It is also highly probable in that instance that the West would sponsor a Ukrainian resistance movement and the status of Ukraine as Russian would not be settled for decades if ever. The nations surrounding Russian Ukraine would also end up being heavily garrisoned by NATO forces. None of that is satisfactory, but it isn't a doomsday scenario for Britain either.
What I am afraid is a doomsday scenario is energy prices at their current levels, which simply make our economy unworkable - unable to compete with other economies. That will just eviscerate us and leave us incapable of fighting Russia or anyone else.
Looks like I cashed out of my france outright bet at the right time…
I looked at it, and let it ride...
At least we will be spared the ultimate nightmare of a French football World Cup win, then a French rugby World Cup win, then an exultant Olympics in Paris
I've noticed that even when Messi has not played particularly well the headlines tend to be along the lines of 'Messi and Argentina through to next round', as if he was somehow separate from them, or that the real story is about his journey rather than that of the time. The surprising thing is if the reaction of his team mates is anything to go by, like when they one the Copa America, they see it in a similar way. Which is a contrast to some other big name players and their national teams.
Messi has scored in every round, whether or not he is playing particularly well, and is leading scorer in this World Cup, as Gary Lineker was in 1986.
It was a general observation going back well before this world cup.
I’m a Markle skeptic, but Jeremy Clarkson’s despicable comments in the Sun have somehow pushed me into Camp Meghan.
Much of the article was spot on, she and her husband have spent the last week whinging like ungrateful brats from their California mansion for Netflix millions trashing the family that made them and even the British public.
They even had the audacity to mock the Kensington and Chelsea house they were gifted by the Queen
Yes we always had unimpeachable royals before an American with the wrong skin tone turned up. And I bet she didn't vote Trump!
I believe the biggest scandal is Markle's unprovoked attack on the Daily Mail and the Sun. Two of Britain's greatest bastions of truth.
I'm being snarky. If she and Harry brought the whole sorry edifice down, I'd doff my cap to 'em.
They won’t for starters both are almost as unpopular as Prince Andrew with the British public now.
Plus without their royal links they are just a dim ex captain with poor A levels and a C- list actress
You are comparing the alleged villainy of a man accused of sex offences with a couple who have a beef with the Daily Mail and are critical of the palace for not being supportive.
Anyway what's his educational qualifications got to do with anything? And correct me if I am wrong but this mere Captain saw more hostile fire than you did in Afghanistan.
Really? I’d be very surprised if Harry was let anywhere near the enemy
He flew 100 missions, mostly operating the weapons systems as co-pilot, including close combat air support:
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
It is still worth looking at what is most effective at supporting Ukraine, and what was less useful.
Of course. But we know that’s not our Putin-loving companion’s objective
Looks like I cashed out of my france outright bet at the right time…
I looked at it, and let it ride...
At least we will be spared the ultimate nightmare of a French football World Cup win, then a French rugby World Cup win, then an exultant Olympics in Paris
I think France will be very lucky to beat Steroid South Africa and New Zealand ....and the Olympics could be a shit show like the Champions league final...
I’m a Markle skeptic, but Jeremy Clarkson’s despicable comments in the Sun have somehow pushed me into Camp Meghan.
Much of the article was spot on, she and her husband have spent the last week whinging like ungrateful brats from their California mansion for Netflix millions trashing the family that made them and even the British public.
They even had the audacity to mock the Kensington and Chelsea house they were gifted by the Queen
Yes we always had unimpeachable royals before an American with the wrong skin tone turned up. And I bet she didn't vote Trump!
I believe the biggest scandal is Markle's unprovoked attack on the Daily Mail and the Sun. Two of Britain's greatest bastions of truth.
I'm being snarky. If she and Harry brought the whole sorry edifice down, I'd doff my cap to 'em.
They won’t for starters both are almost as unpopular as Prince Andrew with the British public now.
Plus without their royal links they are just a dim ex captain with poor A levels and a C- list actress
You are comparing the alleged villainy of a man accused of sex offences with a couple who have a beef with the Daily Mail and are critical of the palace for not being supportive.
Anyway what's his educational qualifications got to do with anything? And correct me if I am wrong but this mere Captain saw more hostile fire than you did in Afghanistan.
Really? I’d be very surprised if Harry was let anywhere near the enemy
He flew 100 missions, mostly operating the weapons systems as co-pilot, including close combat air support:
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
I’m guessing you are one of those introverts with a proper house and garden and family at hand. Like so many of the lockdown fans
The psychological damage wrought by lockdown is enormous
I am an extrovert and the only socializing I did for about a year was sitting across the street from my neighbours in deckchairs. Yes, I have a family, but looking after a baby and a toddler with no parental or babysitter support made lockdown harder not easier.
I am not a "fan" of lockdown in the same way I would not have been a "fan" of blackouts during the Blitz. I do, however, accept that mental hardship is not a greater cost than being dead. Which is what people ranting at the state were happy for others to do rather than face some adversity themselves.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
It is still worth looking at what is most effective at supporting Ukraine, and what was less useful.
Of course. But we know that’s not our Putin-loving companion’s objective
I find it rather pathetic when having a fairly reasoned debate with questions and answers back and forth, when 'Putin-loving' gets dusted down. It signals a great lack of confidence in your own argument.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
It is still worth looking at what is most effective at supporting Ukraine, and what was less useful.
Of course. But we know that’s not our Putin-loving companion’s objective
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
It is still worth looking at what is most effective at supporting Ukraine, and what was less useful.
Of course. But we know that’s not our Putin-loving companion’s objective
I find it rather pathetic when having a fairly reasoned debate with questions and answers back and forth, when 'Putin-loving' gets dusted down. It signals a great lack of confidence in your own argument.
You’re literally arguing we should sit back and let Russia take over the whole of Ukraine.
I’m a Markle skeptic, but Jeremy Clarkson’s despicable comments in the Sun have somehow pushed me into Camp Meghan.
Much of the article was spot on, she and her husband have spent the last week whinging like ungrateful brats from their California mansion for Netflix millions trashing the family that made them and even the British public.
They even had the audacity to mock the Kensington and Chelsea house they were gifted by the Queen
Yes we always had unimpeachable royals before an American with the wrong skin tone turned up. And I bet she didn't vote Trump!
I believe the biggest scandal is Markle's unprovoked attack on the Daily Mail and the Sun. Two of Britain's greatest bastions of truth.
I'm being snarky. If she and Harry brought the whole sorry edifice down, I'd doff my cap to 'em.
They won’t for starters both are almost as unpopular as Prince Andrew with the British public now.
Plus without their royal links they are just a dim ex captain with poor A levels and a C- list actress
You are comparing the alleged villainy of a man accused of sex offences with a couple who have a beef with the Daily Mail and are critical of the palace for not being supportive.
Anyway what's his educational qualifications got to do with anything? And correct me if I am wrong but this mere Captain saw more hostile fire than you did in Afghanistan.
Really? I’d be very surprised if Harry was let anywhere near the enemy
He flew 100 missions, mostly operating the weapons systems as co-pilot, including close combat air support:
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Because they would roll into the Baltics and Poland next.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
I’m guessing you are one of those introverts with a proper house and garden and family at hand. Like so many of the lockdown fans
The psychological damage wrought by lockdown is enormous
I am an extrovert and the only socializing I did for about a year was sitting across the street from my neighbours in deckchairs. Yes, I have a family, but looking after a baby and a toddler with no parental or babysitter support made lockdown harder not easier.
I am not a "fan" of lockdown in the same way I would not have been a "fan" of blackouts during the Blitz. I do, however, accept that mental hardship is not a greater cost than being dead. Which is what people ranting at the state were happy for others to do rather than face some adversity themselves.
The dead would have been mainly old fat unhealthy people
We shattered and impoverished society to save a bunch of 80 year olds. It was a disastrous error
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
It is still worth looking at what is most effective at supporting Ukraine, and what was less useful.
Of course. But we know that’s not our Putin-loving companion’s objective
I find it rather pathetic when having a fairly reasoned debate with questions and answers back and forth, when 'Putin-loving' gets dusted down. It signals a great lack of confidence in your own argument.
You’re literally arguing we should sit back and let Russia take over the whole of Ukraine.
No I am not; I am arguing that our Ukraine policy, like every other foreign or domestic policy, must be subject to analysis of the costs and benefits, and potentially to change if the costs become too high and the benefits become too few. That isn't an outlandish concept, and it's bizarre that it's being treated as such.
I’m a Markle skeptic, but Jeremy Clarkson’s despicable comments in the Sun have somehow pushed me into Camp Meghan.
Much of the article was spot on, she and her husband have spent the last week whinging like ungrateful brats from their California mansion for Netflix millions trashing the family that made them and even the British public.
They even had the audacity to mock the Kensington and Chelsea house they were gifted by the Queen
Yes we always had unimpeachable royals before an American with the wrong skin tone turned up. And I bet she didn't vote Trump!
I believe the biggest scandal is Markle's unprovoked attack on the Daily Mail and the Sun. Two of Britain's greatest bastions of truth.
I'm being snarky. If she and Harry brought the whole sorry edifice down, I'd doff my cap to 'em.
They won’t for starters both are almost as unpopular as Prince Andrew with the British public now.
Plus without their royal links they are just a dim ex captain with poor A levels and a C- list actress
You are comparing the alleged villainy of a man accused of sex offences with a couple who have a beef with the Daily Mail and are critical of the palace for not being supportive.
Anyway what's his educational qualifications got to do with anything? And correct me if I am wrong but this mere Captain saw more hostile fire than you did in Afghanistan.
Really? I’d be very surprised if Harry was let anywhere near the enemy
He flew 100 missions, mostly operating the weapons systems as co-pilot, including close combat air support:
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Because they would roll into the Baltics and Poland next.
Possibly - the danger of that is part of the analysis of the policy.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
It is still worth looking at what is most effective at supporting Ukraine, and what was less useful.
Of course. But we know that’s not our Putin-loving companion’s objective
I find it rather pathetic when having a fairly reasoned debate with questions and answers back and forth, when 'Putin-loving' gets dusted down. It signals a great lack of confidence in your own argument.
You are an apologist for an evil regime.
“On the one hand, on the other… it’s only fair to take Russian lies at face value until they are disproven… maybe MH17 wasn’t actually shot down by them…”
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Do you think the Russians would stop there?
I am sure factions within Russia would want to carry on invading places, and other factions would want to consolidate its gains. It is also highly probable in that instance that the West would sponsor a Ukrainian resistance movement and the status of Ukraine as Russian would not be settled for decades if ever. The nations surrounding Russian Ukraine would also end up being heavily garrisoned by NATO forces. None of that is satisfactory, but it isn't a doomsday scenario for Britain either.
What I am afraid is a doomsday scenario is energy prices at their current levels, which simply make our economy unworkable - unable to compete with other economies. That will just eviscerate us and leave us incapable of fighting Russia or anyone else.
Except that energy prices are now falling on the world markets. Especially LNG futures.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
I’m guessing you are one of those introverts with a proper house and garden and family at hand. Like so many of the lockdown fans
The psychological damage wrought by lockdown is enormous
I am an extrovert and the only socializing I did for about a year was sitting across the street from my neighbours in deckchairs. Yes, I have a family, but looking after a baby and a toddler with no parental or babysitter support made lockdown harder not easier.
I am not a "fan" of lockdown in the same way I would not have been a "fan" of blackouts during the Blitz. I do, however, accept that mental hardship is not a greater cost than being dead. Which is what people ranting at the state were happy for others to do rather than face some adversity themselves.
The dead would have been mainly old fat unhealthy people
We shattered and impoverished society to save a bunch of 80 year olds. It was a disastrous error
The Government had a hugely difficult decision to make. Letting the plague rip would've resulted in carnage.
OTOH I completely get the anger. This is a society that almost entirely subordinates the needs, interests and wishes of the young to those of the old. It will destroy us in the end.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
It is still worth looking at what is most effective at supporting Ukraine, and what was less useful.
Of course. But we know that’s not our Putin-loving companion’s objective
I find it rather pathetic when having a fairly reasoned debate with questions and answers back and forth, when 'Putin-loving' gets dusted down. It signals a great lack of confidence in your own argument.
You’re literally arguing we should sit back and let Russia take over the whole of Ukraine.
No I am not; I am arguing that our Ukraine policy, like every other foreign or domestic policy, must be subject to analysis of the costs and benefits, and potentially to change if the costs become too high and the benefits become too few. That isn't an outlandish concept, and it's bizarre that it's being treated as such.
You get a general thumbs up from me. To my mind you're a a rather great poster.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Do you think the Russians would stop there?
I am sure factions within Russia would want to carry on invading places, and other factions would want to consolidate its gains. It is also highly probable in that instance that the West would sponsor a Ukrainian resistance movement and the status of Ukraine as Russian would not be settled for decades if ever. The nations surrounding Russian Ukraine would also end up being heavily garrisoned by NATO forces. None of that is satisfactory, but it isn't a doomsday scenario for Britain either.
What I am afraid is a doomsday scenario is energy prices at their current levels, which simply make our economy unworkable - unable to compete with other economies. That will just eviscerate us and leave us incapable of fighting Russia or anyone else.
Except that energy prices are now falling on the world markets. Especially LNG futures.
I am pleased and relieved to hear that. I can only imagine how dynamic our economy would be if energy prices were at US levels. It is the crux of everything.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
It is still worth looking at what is most effective at supporting Ukraine, and what was less useful.
Of course. But we know that’s not our Putin-loving companion’s objective
I find it rather pathetic when having a fairly reasoned debate with questions and answers back and forth, when 'Putin-loving' gets dusted down. It signals a great lack of confidence in your own argument.
You’re literally arguing we should sit back and let Russia take over the whole of Ukraine.
No I am not; I am arguing that our Ukraine policy, like every other foreign or domestic policy, must be subject to analysis of the costs and benefits, and potentially to change if the costs become too high and the benefits become too few. That isn't an outlandish concept, and it's bizarre that it's being treated as such.
You get a general thumbs up from me. To my mind you're a a rather great poster.
I’m a Markle skeptic, but Jeremy Clarkson’s despicable comments in the Sun have somehow pushed me into Camp Meghan.
Much of the article was spot on, she and her husband have spent the last week whinging like ungrateful brats from their California mansion for Netflix millions trashing the family that made them and even the British public.
They even had the audacity to mock the Kensington and Chelsea house they were gifted by the Queen
Yes we always had unimpeachable royals before an American with the wrong skin tone turned up. And I bet she didn't vote Trump!
I believe the biggest scandal is Markle's unprovoked attack on the Daily Mail and the Sun. Two of Britain's greatest bastions of truth.
I'm being snarky. If she and Harry brought the whole sorry edifice down, I'd doff my cap to 'em.
They won’t for starters both are almost as unpopular as Prince Andrew with the British public now.
Plus without their royal links they are just a dim ex captain with poor A levels and a C- list actress
You are comparing the alleged villainy of a man accused of sex offences with a couple who have a beef with the Daily Mail and are critical of the palace for not being supportive.
Anyway what's his educational qualifications got to do with anything? And correct me if I am wrong but this mere Captain saw more hostile fire than you did in Afghanistan.
Really? I’d be very surprised if Harry was let anywhere near the enemy
He flew 100 missions, mostly operating the weapons systems as co-pilot, including close combat air support:
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Do you think the Russians would stop there?
I am sure factions within Russia would want to carry on invading places, and other factions would want to consolidate its gains. It is also highly probable in that instance that the West would sponsor a Ukrainian resistance movement and the status of Ukraine as Russian would not be settled for decades if ever. The nations surrounding Russian Ukraine would also end up being heavily garrisoned by NATO forces. None of that is satisfactory, but it isn't a doomsday scenario for Britain either.
What I am afraid is a doomsday scenario is energy prices at their current levels, which simply make our economy unworkable - unable to compete with other economies. That will just eviscerate us and leave us incapable of fighting Russia or anyone else.
To put it politely I don't agree. Helping Ukraine is a very cost effective way of reducing the military effectiveness of Russia, which is what most of our military capability historically has been focused on.
And high energy prices are probably something we need to get serious about getting away from fossil fuels. I can't remember who said the quote about wasting a crisis, but it seems very appropriate at the moment.
These disappointments are relative. He at least has a European Championship win to his name, which is more than can be said about any England player, ever.
EDIT: I am talking specifically about the serially faceplanting men's side, of course.
Here are a few interesting things you might not know:
The shortest war in history was between Britain and Zanzibar on August 27, 1896. Zanzibar surrendered after just 38 minutes. The only planet in our solar system that rotates clockwise is Venus. The term "butterfly" was originally used to describe a butter-colored fly. The longest word in the English language, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. It is a technical word used to describe a lung disease caused by inhaling very fine silicate or quartz dust. The world's largest snowflake on record was reported to have fallen in Montana in 1887, and was 15 inches wide, 8 inches thick, and 18 inches in diameter.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
It is still worth looking at what is most effective at supporting Ukraine, and what was less useful.
Of course. But we know that’s not our Putin-loving companion’s objective
I find it rather pathetic when having a fairly reasoned debate with questions and answers back and forth, when 'Putin-loving' gets dusted down. It signals a great lack of confidence in your own argument.
You are an apologist for an evil regime.
“On the one hand, on the other… it’s only fair to take Russian lies at face value until they are disproven… maybe MH17 wasn’t actually shot down by them…”
Motives matter.
Meanwhile the actual professional on the site is (usually) a lot more subtle about it.
But I think I do understand LuckyGuy’s world view. In my book it’s a category error: it’s founded on the idea “they’re all as bad as each other” and the US is an international bully that needs counterbalancing. This leads to a form of realpolitik. I get that, but I think it presupposes Russia is fundamentally just a flawed but normal state. I don’t think it is.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Do you think the Russians would stop there?
I am sure factions within Russia would want to carry on invading places, and other factions would want to consolidate its gains. It is also highly probable in that instance that the West would sponsor a Ukrainian resistance movement and the status of Ukraine as Russian would not be settled for decades if ever. The nations surrounding Russian Ukraine would also end up being heavily garrisoned by NATO forces. None of that is satisfactory, but it isn't a doomsday scenario for Britain either.
What I am afraid is a doomsday scenario is energy prices at their current levels, which simply make our economy unworkable - unable to compete with other economies. That will just eviscerate us and leave us incapable of fighting Russia or anyone else.
Except that energy prices are now falling on the world markets. Especially LNG futures.
I am pleased and relieved to hear that. I can only imagine how dynamic our economy would be if energy prices were at US levels. It is the crux of everything.
No, not everything. It is a considerable impact on short term economics though. Which is why depending on Russia is for lunatics.
The fall is caused by more US operations coming back on line, various LNG projects coming on line and a flood of new* LNG tanker are entering the market.
*The initial batches are reconditioned tankers and existing construction that has been accelerated. The first all new LNG tankers from the wave sparked by the Ukraine war are still building.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Because they would roll into the Baltics and Poland next.
Possibly - the danger of that is part of the analysis of the policy.
Given your 'analysis' of the MH17 incident (you just spewed out whatever was emanating from Russia), your 'analysis' of anything to do with Russia is highly suspect.
Looks like I cashed out of my france outright bet at the right time…
I looked at it, and let it ride...
At least we will be spared the ultimate nightmare of a French football World Cup win, then a French rugby World Cup win, then an exultant Olympics in Paris
These disappointments are relative. He at least has a European Championship win to his name, which is more than can be said about any England player, ever.
Ronaldo doesn't care about that, he wants to be remembered as the best player of his generation. Messi wins the world cup i think it will have many more people saying Messi was the better player.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
I’m guessing you are one of those introverts with a proper house and garden and family at hand. Like so many of the lockdown fans
The psychological damage wrought by lockdown is enormous
I am an extrovert and the only socializing I did for about a year was sitting across the street from my neighbours in deckchairs. Yes, I have a family, but looking after a baby and a toddler with no parental or babysitter support made lockdown harder not easier.
I am not a "fan" of lockdown in the same way I would not have been a "fan" of blackouts during the Blitz. I do, however, accept that mental hardship is not a greater cost than being dead. Which is what people ranting at the state were happy for others to do rather than face some adversity themselves.
The dead would have been mainly old fat unhealthy people
We shattered and impoverished society to save a bunch of 80 year olds. It was a disastrous error
The US is a pretty good guide to age profiles for a much maxer lockdown policy. There, the majority of deaths from COVID were under 80. Almost a third were under 65. So that would have probably have been half a million working age deaths in the UK with a conservative 2% death rate. And that's excluding additional deaths from hospitals being unable to take people for any emergency because they would literally have had no beds left.
A pretty horrific death toll even ignoring the massive extra
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
I’m guessing you are one of those introverts with a proper house and garden and family at hand. Like so many of the lockdown fans
The psychological damage wrought by lockdown is enormous
I am an extrovert and the only socializing I did for about a year was sitting across the street from my neighbours in deckchairs. Yes, I have a family, but looking after a baby and a toddler with no parental or babysitter support made lockdown harder not easier.
I am not a "fan" of lockdown in the same way I would not have been a "fan" of blackouts during the Blitz. I do, however, accept that mental hardship is not a greater cost than being dead. Which is what people ranting at the state were happy for others to do rather than face some adversity themselves.
The dead would have been mainly old fat unhealthy people
We shattered and impoverished society to save a bunch of 80 year olds. It was a disastrous error
The US is a pretty good guide to age profiles for a much maxer lockdown policy. There, the majority of deaths from COVID were under 80. Almost a third were under 65. So that would have probably have been half a million working age deaths in the UK with a conservative 2% death rate. And that's excluding additional deaths from hospitals being unable to take people for any emergency because they would literally have had no beds left.
A pretty horrific death toll even ignoring the massive extra
I’m a Markle skeptic, but Jeremy Clarkson’s despicable comments in the Sun have somehow pushed me into Camp Meghan.
Much of the article was spot on, she and her husband have spent the last week whinging like ungrateful brats from their California mansion for Netflix millions trashing the family that made them and even the British public.
They even had the audacity to mock the Kensington and Chelsea house they were gifted by the Queen
Yes we always had unimpeachable royals before an American with the wrong skin tone turned up. And I bet she didn't vote Trump!
I believe the biggest scandal is Markle's unprovoked attack on the Daily Mail and the Sun. Two of Britain's greatest bastions of truth.
I'm being snarky. If she and Harry brought the whole sorry edifice down, I'd doff my cap to 'em.
They won’t for starters both are almost as unpopular as Prince Andrew with the British public now.
Plus without their royal links they are just a dim ex captain with poor A levels and a C- list actress
You are comparing the alleged villainy of a man accused of sex offences with a couple who have a beef with the Daily Mail and are critical of the palace for not being supportive.
Anyway what's his educational qualifications got to do with anything? And correct me if I am wrong but this mere Captain saw more hostile fire than you did in Afghanistan.
Really? I’d be very surprised if Harry was let anywhere near the enemy
He flew 100 missions, mostly operating the weapons systems as co-pilot, including close combat air support:
Here are a few interesting things you might not know:
The shortest war in history was between Britain and Zanzibar on August 27, 1896. Zanzibar surrendered after just 38 minutes. The only planet in our solar system that rotates clockwise is Venus. The term "butterfly" was originally used to describe a butter-colored fly. The longest word in the English language, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. It is a technical word used to describe a lung disease caused by inhaling very fine silicate or quartz dust. The world's largest snowflake on record was reported to have fallen in Montana in 1887, and was 15 inches wide, 8 inches thick, and 18 inches in diameter.
Notwithstanding the fact that it also wheels around the Sun almost on its side, Uranus rotates clockwise, too.
I’m a Markle skeptic, but Jeremy Clarkson’s despicable comments in the Sun have somehow pushed me into Camp Meghan.
Much of the article was spot on, she and her husband have spent the last week whinging like ungrateful brats from their California mansion for Netflix millions trashing the family that made them and even the British public.
They even had the audacity to mock the Kensington and Chelsea house they were gifted by the Queen
Yes we always had unimpeachable royals before an American with the wrong skin tone turned up. And I bet she didn't vote Trump!
I believe the biggest scandal is Markle's unprovoked attack on the Daily Mail and the Sun. Two of Britain's greatest bastions of truth.
I'm being snarky. If she and Harry brought the whole sorry edifice down, I'd doff my cap to 'em.
They won’t for starters both are almost as unpopular as Prince Andrew with the British public now.
Plus without their royal links they are just a dim ex captain with poor A levels and a C- list actress
You are comparing the alleged villainy of a man accused of sex offences with a couple who have a beef with the Daily Mail and are critical of the palace for not being supportive.
Anyway what's his educational qualifications got to do with anything? And correct me if I am wrong but this mere Captain saw more hostile fire than you did in Afghanistan.
Really? I’d be very surprised if Harry was let anywhere near the enemy
He flew 100 missions, mostly operating the weapons systems as co-pilot, including close combat air support:
There has to be a slight question mark on that if he says he was scared by his brother's shouting.
Different issue. Soldiers train for combat, but can still be vulnerable when their formerly close family turn against them.
That's true of course, but scared seems the wrong emotion. Of course it was the future King allegedly shouting, and that might make a difference.
His brother, who was his closest confidant too for many years.
It is rather ironic though that the only two Royals who served in wars are the two who are person nongrata.
The military seem to show little support for either of them. (Even Harry's disabled games seem not to be quite embraced)
In Andrew’s case, that may be something to do with the attitude of those that served with him. I’ve met one or two and they were uniformly not members of his fan club.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
I've been struggling with my mental health on and off ever since Lockdown II, to the point where, to be honest with you, full time work is hard - and I may part-time it for the forseeable, at whatever cost that is to the economy and the exchequer vs what I was earning before.
I was actually starting to feel better this summer and considering a return to full time work, but I've been on the downward slide since October and the last couple of brutal weeks of weather have really rammed the depression home. It's hard at the moment to even get out of bed, let alone work.
My mental health has not been the same since lockdown and every day is a struggle. I've never tested positive for Covid, but I'm still suffering the effects of lockdown years later.
Wonder how many people there are out there like me.
Similar story here.
There was a post on my local subreddit just asking something like 'Anyone else suffering after lockdowns?' and there was an outpouring of people replying with all the - sometimes small, sometimes huge - mental health issues on the back of it. Sometimes just a little 'tick' like still washing their hands with sanitiser after touching something 'from the outside', sometimes people basically unable to leave home, sometimes.... on and on.
I’m a Markle skeptic, but Jeremy Clarkson’s despicable comments in the Sun have somehow pushed me into Camp Meghan.
Much of the article was spot on, she and her husband have spent the last week whinging like ungrateful brats from their California mansion for Netflix millions trashing the family that made them and even the British public.
They even had the audacity to mock the Kensington and Chelsea house they were gifted by the Queen
Yes we always had unimpeachable royals before an American with the wrong skin tone turned up. And I bet she didn't vote Trump!
I believe the biggest scandal is Markle's unprovoked attack on the Daily Mail and the Sun. Two of Britain's greatest bastions of truth.
I'm being snarky. If she and Harry brought the whole sorry edifice down, I'd doff my cap to 'em.
They won’t for starters both are almost as unpopular as Prince Andrew with the British public now.
Plus without their royal links they are just a dim ex captain with poor A levels and a C- list actress
You are comparing the alleged villainy of a man accused of sex offences with a couple who have a beef with the Daily Mail and are critical of the palace for not being supportive.
Anyway what's his educational qualifications got to do with anything? And correct me if I am wrong but this mere Captain saw more hostile fire than you did in Afghanistan.
Really? I’d be very surprised if Harry was let anywhere near the enemy
He flew 100 missions, mostly operating the weapons systems as co-pilot, including close combat air support:
There has to be a slight question mark on that if he says he was scared by his brother's shouting.
Different issue. Soldiers train for combat, but can still be vulnerable when their formerly close family turn against them.
That's true of course, but scared seems the wrong emotion. Of course it was the future King allegedly shouting, and that might make a difference.
His brother, who was his closest confidant too for many years.
It is rather ironic though that the only two Royals who served in wars are the two who are person nongrata.
The military seem to show little support for either of them. (Even Harry's disabled games seem not to be quite embraced)
I don't think the military are keen to see the casualties of war made visible, either the physical or the psychological ones. It is why we have such shit veterans services.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
It is still worth looking at what is most effective at supporting Ukraine, and what was less useful.
Of course. But we know that’s not our Putin-loving companion’s objective
I find it rather pathetic when having a fairly reasoned debate with questions and answers back and forth, when 'Putin-loving' gets dusted down. It signals a great lack of confidence in your own argument.
You are an apologist for an evil regime.
“On the one hand, on the other… it’s only fair to take Russian lies at face value until they are disproven… maybe MH17 wasn’t actually shot down by them…”
Motives matter.
Meanwhile the actual professional on the site is (usually) a lot more subtle about it.
But I think I do understand LuckyGuy’s world view. In my book it’s a category error: it’s founded on the idea “they’re all as bad as each other” and the US is an international bully that needs counterbalancing. This leads to a form of realpolitik. I get that, but I think it presupposes Russia is fundamentally just a flawed but normal state. I don’t think it is.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
I've been struggling with my mental health on and off ever since Lockdown II, to the point where, to be honest with you, full time work is hard - and I may part-time it for the forseeable, at whatever cost that is to the economy and the exchequer vs what I was earning before.
I was actually starting to feel better this summer and considering a return to full time work, but I've been on the downward slide since October and the last couple of brutal weeks of weather have really rammed the depression home. It's hard at the moment to even get out of bed, let alone work.
My mental health has not been the same since lockdown and every day is a struggle. I've never tested positive for Covid, but I'm still suffering the effects of lockdown years later.
Wonder how many people there are out there like me.
Similar story here.
There was a post on my local subreddit just asking something like 'Anyone else suffering after lockdowns?' and there was an outpouring of people replying with all the - sometimes small, sometimes huge - mental health issues on the back of it. Sometimes just a little 'tick' like still washing their hands with sanitiser after touching something 'from the outside', sometimes people basically unable to leave home, sometimes.... on and on.
It was quite an eye-opening read.
I’ve lost count of the frayed friendships, the divorces, the people still cowering at home
One friend was actually sent mad. From being a normal boozy gent he was last seen checking under Tube train seats for “kidnappers” and has not emerged since
Here are a few interesting things you might not know:
The shortest war in history was between Britain and Zanzibar on August 27, 1896. Zanzibar surrendered after just 38 minutes. The only planet in our solar system that rotates clockwise is Venus. The term "butterfly" was originally used to describe a butter-colored fly. The longest word in the English language, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. It is a technical word used to describe a lung disease caused by inhaling very fine silicate or quartz dust. The world's largest snowflake on record was reported to have fallen in Montana in 1887, and was 15 inches wide, 8 inches thick, and 18 inches in diameter.
Notwithstanding the fact that it also wheels around the Sun almost on its side, Uranus rotates clockwise, too.
I apologize for the confusion. You are correct that I previously gave conflicting information about the direction of Uranus' rotation. I apologize for the error.
Uranus rotates in a direction that is opposite to the direction of most of the other planets in our solar system. Specifically, Uranus rotates counterclockwise as viewed from above its north pole. Its rotational axis is tilted at an angle of about 98 degrees relative to its orbit around the sun, which means that it rotates in a direction that is perpendicular to the direction of most of the other planets.
The unique rotational orientation of Uranus is thought to be the result of a collision or other event early in its history that caused the planet to be tilted on its side. This unusual orientation means that the poles of Uranus experience prolonged periods of sunlight and darkness, with each pole experiencing a 42-year-long period of either day or night.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
I've been struggling with my mental health on and off ever since Lockdown II, to the point where, to be honest with you, full time work is hard - and I may part-time it for the forseeable, at whatever cost that is to the economy and the exchequer vs what I was earning before.
I was actually starting to feel better this summer and considering a return to full time work, but I've been on the downward slide since October and the last couple of brutal weeks of weather have really rammed the depression home. It's hard at the moment to even get out of bed, let alone work.
My mental health has not been the same since lockdown and every day is a struggle. I've never tested positive for Covid, but I'm still suffering the effects of lockdown years later.
Wonder how many people there are out there like me.
Similar story here.
There was a post on my local subreddit just asking something like 'Anyone else suffering after lockdowns?' and there was an outpouring of people replying with all the - sometimes small, sometimes huge - mental health issues on the back of it. Sometimes just a little 'tick' like still washing their hands with sanitiser after touching something 'from the outside', sometimes people basically unable to leave home, sometimes.... on and on.
It was quite an eye-opening read.
I’ve lost count of the frayed friendships, the divorces, the people still cowering at home
One friend was actually sent mad. From being a normal boozy gent he was last seen checking under Tube train seats for “kidnappers” and has not emerged since
Also, it was fascinating to see how quickly Britain descended into authoritarianism.
Plenty of neighbours were only too happy to grass on each other to the authorities for trivial "infractions".
Speaks to a fascinating part of the human psychy this and shows how willingly plenty of people would have been to cooperate with the Nazis had we ever been occupied.
I’m a Markle skeptic, but Jeremy Clarkson’s despicable comments in the Sun have somehow pushed me into Camp Meghan.
Much of the article was spot on, she and her husband have spent the last week whinging like ungrateful brats from their California mansion for Netflix millions trashing the family that made them and even the British public.
They even had the audacity to mock the Kensington and Chelsea house they were gifted by the Queen
Yes we always had unimpeachable royals before an American with the wrong skin tone turned up. And I bet she didn't vote Trump!
I believe the biggest scandal is Markle's unprovoked attack on the Daily Mail and the Sun. Two of Britain's greatest bastions of truth.
I'm being snarky. If she and Harry brought the whole sorry edifice down, I'd doff my cap to 'em.
They won’t for starters both are almost as unpopular as Prince Andrew with the British public now.
Plus without their royal links they are just a dim ex captain with poor A levels and a C- list actress
You are comparing the alleged villainy of a man accused of sex offences with a couple who have a beef with the Daily Mail and are critical of the palace for not being supportive.
Anyway what's his educational qualifications got to do with anything? And correct me if I am wrong but this mere Captain saw more hostile fire than you did in Afghanistan.
Really? I’d be very surprised if Harry was let anywhere near the enemy
He flew 100 missions, mostly operating the weapons systems as co-pilot, including close combat air support:
There has to be a slight question mark on that if he says he was scared by his brother's shouting.
A former very senior officer of the Royal Navy once told me that having played tag with Brezhnev's subs throughout the 1970s he'd never been more scared in his life than when a maths teacher got mad at him in a meeting about school finances.
It wasn't until much later that he explained this was partly because he knew one of the other people in the room, who stands 6 ft 4 and is built in proportion, was frequently physically violent and was triggered by people shouting.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Do you think the Russians would stop there?
I am sure factions within Russia would want to carry on invading places, and other factions would want to consolidate its gains. It is also highly probable in that instance that the West would sponsor a Ukrainian resistance movement and the status of Ukraine as Russian would not be settled for decades if ever. The nations surrounding Russian Ukraine would also end up being heavily garrisoned by NATO forces. None of that is satisfactory, but it isn't a doomsday scenario for Britain either.
What I am afraid is a doomsday scenario is energy prices at their current levels, which simply make our economy unworkable - unable to compete with other economies. That will just eviscerate us and leave us incapable of fighting Russia or anyone else.
Except that energy prices are now falling on the world markets. Especially LNG futures.
I am pleased and relieved to hear that. I can only imagine how dynamic our economy would be if energy prices were at US levels. It is the crux of everything.
No, not everything. It is a considerable impact on short term economics though. Which is why depending on Russia is for lunatics.
The fall is caused by more US operations coming back on line, various LNG projects coming on line and a flood of new* LNG tanker are entering the market.
*The initial batches are reconditioned tankers and existing construction that has been accelerated. The first all new LNG tankers from the wave sparked by the Ukraine war are still building.
Depending on anyone else is lunacy. And unnecessary.
Comments
What I am afraid is a doomsday scenario is energy prices at their current levels, which simply make our economy unworkable - unable to compete with other economies. That will just eviscerate us and leave us incapable of fighting Russia or anyone else.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prince-harry-completes-tour-of-duty-in-afghanistan.
I am not a "fan" of lockdown in the same way I would not have been a "fan" of blackouts during the Blitz. I do, however, accept that mental hardship is not a greater cost than being dead. Which is what people ranting at the state were happy for others to do rather than face some adversity themselves.
ETA It could have been an artefact of all the betting/laying action switching to Argentina.
We shattered and impoverished society to save a bunch of 80 year olds. It was a disastrous error
“On the one hand, on the other… it’s only fair to take Russian lies at face value until they are disproven… maybe MH17 wasn’t actually shot down by them…”
Motives matter.
OTOH I completely get the anger. This is a society that almost entirely subordinates the needs, interests and wishes of the young to those of the old. It will destroy us in the end.
(@Luckyguy1983 )
It is rather ironic though that the only two Royals who served in wars are the two who are person nongrata.
And high energy prices are probably something we need to get serious about getting away from fossil fuels. I can't remember who said the quote about wasting a crisis, but it seems very appropriate at the moment.
EDIT: I am talking specifically about the serially faceplanting men's side, of course.
Here are a few interesting things you might not know:
The shortest war in history was between Britain and Zanzibar on August 27, 1896. Zanzibar surrendered after just 38 minutes.
The only planet in our solar system that rotates clockwise is Venus.
The term "butterfly" was originally used to describe a butter-colored fly.
The longest word in the English language, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. It is a technical word used to describe a lung disease caused by inhaling very fine silicate or quartz dust.
The world's largest snowflake on record was reported to have fallen in Montana in 1887, and was 15 inches wide, 8 inches thick, and 18 inches in diameter.
But I think I do understand LuckyGuy’s world view. In my book it’s a category error: it’s founded on the idea “they’re all as bad as each other” and the US is an international bully that needs counterbalancing. This leads to a form of realpolitik. I get that, but I think it presupposes Russia is fundamentally just a flawed but normal state. I don’t think it is.
The fall is caused by more US operations coming back on line, various LNG projects coming on line and a flood of new* LNG tanker are entering the market.
*The initial batches are reconditioned tankers and existing construction that has been accelerated. The first all new LNG tankers from the wave sparked by the Ukraine war are still building.
Have you read the Dutch MH17 report yet, comrade?
I’m a Markle skeptic, but Jeremy Clarkson’s despicable comments in the Sun have somehow pushed me into Camp Meghan."
I wouldn't allow myself to be influenced either way by someone like Clarkson.
2-2!
The Curse of Leondamus lives!
A pretty horrific death toll even ignoring the massive extra
Now 1.77 Arg / 2.3 Fr
3:47PM
Still only 2 goals tho. And France still have Mbappé
^
cf. ramping Kari Lake and then tipping her opponent when things got desperate.
Fr 2.1
https://twitter.com/carlmarkham/status/1604518757736620033
Nail biter
There was a post on my local subreddit just asking something like 'Anyone else suffering after lockdowns?' and there was an outpouring of people replying with all the - sometimes small, sometimes huge - mental health issues on the back of it. Sometimes just a little 'tick' like still washing their hands with sanitiser after touching something 'from the outside', sometimes people basically unable to leave home, sometimes.... on and on.
It was quite an eye-opening read.
I can only assume she's got some small team working for her pro-bono:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/shamima-begum-podcast-bbc-sounds
One friend was actually sent mad. From being a normal boozy gent he was last seen checking under Tube train seats for “kidnappers” and has not emerged since
Uranus rotates in a direction that is opposite to the direction of most of the other planets in our solar system. Specifically, Uranus rotates counterclockwise as viewed from above its north pole. Its rotational axis is tilted at an angle of about 98 degrees relative to its orbit around the sun, which means that it rotates in a direction that is perpendicular to the direction of most of the other planets.
The unique rotational orientation of Uranus is thought to be the result of a collision or other event early in its history that caused the planet to be tilted on its side. This unusual orientation means that the poles of Uranus experience prolonged periods of sunlight and darkness, with each pole experiencing a 42-year-long period of either day or night.
1.97 FR
2 Arg
Plenty of neighbours were only too happy to grass on each other to the authorities for trivial "infractions".
Speaks to a fascinating part of the human psychy this and shows how willingly plenty of people would have been to cooperate with the Nazis had we ever been occupied.
It wasn't until much later that he explained this was partly because he knew one of the other people in the room, who stands 6 ft 4 and is built in proportion, was frequently physically violent and was triggered by people shouting.