Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
A possible additional factor, and one they likely wouldn't want to advertise, is the position of China.
One of the biggest single risks to a Ukrainian victory is the provision by China of large quantities of military aid to Russia. This also then risks a massive economic crisis if we impose sanctions on China to try and impede this support.
If the West had adopted an approach of providing everything to Ukraine from day one - as I've advocated - anything goes, then China may have been provoked to provide support to Russia in turn.
Acting more gradually, showing China that Russia's failure in Ukraine is not solely due to Western arms support, might make that less likely.
The situation with Iran is really interesting in this respect. It has supplied Russia with drones, but the expected ballistic missiles haven't arrived.
In terms of improving the balance of forces in Ukraine's favour it is as necessary to prevent Russia from receiving military supplies and components as it is to provide the same to Ukraine.
Iranian ballistic missiles may or may not be available in any quantity. So far they seem to have sold the Russians a number of what are, essentially, large r/c model aircraft.
I just checked the global covid stats for the first time in months and it looks like Japan is suffering at the moment: +184,375 cases and +339 deaths in the last day.
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Nicola Sturgeon's attitude is essentially that "if lives have to be lost, that's just the way it is."
This is nonsense. And the header is misleading and biased imo. Several countries handle gender recognition in ways similar to the Scottish reforms ie a process based on self declaration rather than psychiatric diagnosis. There's solid precedent over a prolonged period. It's not some crazy experiment. There are issues to be considered, valid disagreements, but stuff like a "rapists charter"? C'mon. Neither evidence nor logic supports any such conclusion. It's as irrational as the other extreme of saying gender identity should replace birth sex in all aspects of life and the law. It's no slam dunk but on balance I support these reforms and see no "shame" in them at all. If anything Sturgeon is to be congratulated for holding firm on it.
There is lots of evidence of harm in other countries with self-ID. You simply choose to ignore it. The Scottish government which loudly claims that there is no evidence of harm admitted in a written Parliamentary answer that it had done no analysis of the effects of self-ID in other countries. I'd post the evidence if there was even the remotest chance of you reading it. But from your post I have to conclude that you support allowing convicted sex offenders to hide their identity and evade DBS checks. So I won't bother.
I'm supportive of both self-id and the equality act exemptions for single sex spaces. There's no fatal contradiction there imo. I don't ignore facts or argument which challenge this view - but I've yet to come across anything of much substance.
So, yes, around 20 countries have gone this route - demedicalizing the gender recognition process - and if there is indeed "lots of evidence" of serious consequential harm done I am definitely interested to see it.
You are going to have to do a lot of reading then.
First on the legal consequences of the Haldane judgment. If that judgment stands the Equality Act exemptions are meaningless because a man will legally be a woman and therefore cannot be excluded from a single sex space on the grounds of sex. As expert equality lawyers have explained, the interaction of the GRA, the EA, the Haldane Judgment and this Bill will affect those exemptions and on "equal opportunities" - a reserved matter under the devolution settlement. See this - https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/12/21/michael-foran-sex-gender-and-the-scotland-act/.
There is evidence from Canada, Argentina, Belgium, Ireland, Spain. Please note also that comparisons are not easy to make because how crime statistics are collected is not consistent. In some cases relevant information is not collected and the existing laws on discrimination and how they interact with gender recognition are very different to what they are in the U.K. Even the Scottish government has admitted that they did not have evidence to support their Equality Impact Assessment Report.
Ah so I have read that before. It's skimpy imo. Although I take the point on the difficulty of the exercise.
The EA point is one where I agree with you. It has to remain legal to provide single sex spaces.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are far too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
That hauntings are common suggests that the cause is common to all the observers involved - i.e. humans faulty perceptions and our brain's eagerness to creatively fill in the gaps.
If they were less common it would make it harder to dismiss them, as the cause would have to be more specific.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One thing I took from the Joe and Zel show yesterday - perhaps wrongly but I did - is the US doesn't fear Putin going nuclear. That risk has been assessed as low to negligible - assessed correctly imo fwiw.
I didn't realise this but Ukraine for the first time will celebrate Christmas on 25th December. It had previously used the Russian date of 7th January. Yet another way that Ukraine has seemingly irreversibly switched to looking westwards. This was a country that prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 had 80% of the population view Russia favourably.
You seem to like the idea that foreigners have seen the light and started to follow the western way.
I was about to caution you not to rely on the Spectator for information about what's going on in Christian Orthodoxy, but the Spectator article doesn't say what you think. They say "millions of Ukrainians". That is not the same as "Ukraine".
For background, read up on the Moscow-Constantinople schism of 2018.
Other useful info:
1. Belief in Armageddon, the end of days, call it what you like, is MUCH bigger THROUGHOUT Orthodoxy than it is in most (albeit not all) of Roman Catholicism. This includes all flavours of both Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy. It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war. It's all about suffering, the soul, the end of days. Stuff like that is very big in that area of the world - Russia AND its "edge" - and it has been for centuries.
2. Both the Vatican and elements within US-based evangelical Protestantism are salivating at the 2018 (and ongoing) schism and they are angling for gaining converts.
3. Watch certain Orthodox religious buildings in Kiev, and two in particular: the Monastery of the Caves (in possession of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate) and St Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery (in possession of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine since 2018). The Ukrainian security service (SBU) raided the MotC last month.
4. A fundamental belief in Russian Orthodoxy is that "Moscow is the third Rome" (this is why the Russian monarchs styled themselves "Tsars", i.e. Caesars), and to this there is added the statement "and there shall be no fourth". How this is being related to or updated in the part of Ukrainian Orthodoxy that has gone out of communion with Russian Orthodoxy is not something I've studied, but I can tell you from first principles that they will NOT be taking their ideas in a Whiggish direction. See point 1.
5. Then there's the St Alexander Nevsky Church in Jerusalem, close to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Only if the sex offender tells the police first. And why would they do that?
I was somewhat alarmed by the suggestion in your header that the Scotland bill will drive a coach and horses through the disclosure system and indeed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by giving someone a "clean slate". There is nothing I can see in the Bill that would have that effect. What you say would only be correct if this currently happens for those that receive certificates under the 2004 Act and I do not believe that it does. Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act provides: "(2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards)."
The consequences of a certificate under the 2004 Act are set out in ss9-21 of the 2004 Act. These will remain the law in Scotland after the bill has passed (as it inevitably will).
The question is therefore whether there is any evidence that the provisions of s 9(1) (put shortly that a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes) have caused problems in the last 8 years or whether broadening the category of people with a GRC by reducing the criteria makes that likely. I am not aware of such evidence but I can certainly see the risk that making the process easier would give an open door for evil men to exploit. I just can't help feeling that there has been far more heat than light on this.
The issue is this. Under the DBS scheme there is a Sensitive Applications Process for those with a GRC. This relies on the person with a GRC making available to the team doing the checking their previous identity and any previous convictions so that they can be attached to their new identity. It is entirely reliant on the good faith and honesty of the sex offender.
But if a sex offender does not do that the DBS check I will come back "clean". That is the loophole.
An employer cannot ask if someone has a GRC because they may be guilty of discrimination. Another body who knows that the applicant has a GRC may also be in breach of the law by revealing this. So the DBS system relies entirely on a sex offender being honest.
There has as you know been concern in Scotland about sex offenders changing their name and failing to notify the police of this. So what do you think are the chances of these people being honest with the DBS service?
That ought, legislatively, to be an easy fix - has that actively been prevented, or just not properly debated ?
Last night Holyrood voted down the amendment which sought to address this. The only amendment which was passed was one which relies on only certain categories of sex offenders (not all of them) informing the police of their wish to obtain a GRC. In other words, it does not deal with the issue at all.
Was the amendment (the one voted down) proposing a cross-check against criminal records as a routine part of the GRC process?
"The law requires you to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process your application correctly and return accurate results. The DBS have a process to allow you to disclose previous gender/name information to the DBS only. This information does not need to be revealed on the DBS application form or to anyone else. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’."
It seems like the only advantage this Sensitive Applications Process gives is that it "will ensure that any previous gender/name is not released on the DBS certificate, unless permission is provided."
But, say someone (with criminal convictions) gets married and changes their name and moves house. The law requires them to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS - but just like Cyclefree's sex offender with a GRC- this relies on the good faith and honesty of the applicant, no?
Is there any difference between someone with a GRC, and anyone else who has changed their name for whatever reason, except that someone with a GRC will find it easier to have previous names kept hidden from anyone except the DBS?
I must be missing something which hasn't been explained in the header.
To expand on my previous comment a little it seemed to me that the designers of the 2004 Act had a choice. They could either have made gender alteration relatively easy but then built in a series of safeguards to protect vulnerable women (making the certificate much less that the "for all purposes" provision in s9 I quoted earlier) or they could forego the safeguards but make obtaining a certificate more difficult requiring substantial commitment, medical intervention if not actual surgery, and an objective assessment. The drafters of the 2004 Act went for the latter option.
I would say in passing neither of these options is perfect or incapable of exploitation. People born men have obtained GRCs under the 2004 regime and then committed sexual assaults. Sports in particular have struggled with the implications of gender reassignation with historic hormonal advantages. But the solution was balanced and the evidence is that it has caused relatively little trouble.
What the Scottish bill is doing is undoing one part of that compromise (the safeguards) without offering any alternative. This is, in fairness to the Scottish government, in part because putting in other safeguards (such as excluding those who have GRCs from specific areas without further checks) are beyond their power. The courts have been very clear that the rights given by the Equality Act are reserved and beyond their power to change. This is one of the reasons so many of the amendments were voted down last night. Any attempt to impose such restrictions would make the bill vulnerable to judicial challenge.
I can see the frustration. If you are of the view that transsexuals are unfairly treated by the medicalisation of their condition and want to change things you are stuck between a rock and hard place. What Nicola Sturgeon in particular has done is to resolve this tension by denying that there is a problem at all. the safeguards in the 2004 Act were simply not necessary. Many women with experience in these matters have been outraged by this, that hard won rights brought in to protect women are being thought to be less important than the rights of transsexuals.
A potential solution is that the UK government could amend the 2004 Act to impose restrictions on a certificate granted by the Scottish authorities imposing different safeguards. Kemi Badenoch has already hinted that England may do so if this legislation comes into force but this does not have to be a confrontational issue. It would be better if the governments worked together to resolve this as they keep promising (and failing) to do.
Thoughtful and balanced comments, the Scottish government could do with you involved in the drafting process
I have some professional experience in this area, so note a couple of things: - 'transexuals' is a strictly (although use and definitions do vary) more restrictive definition than I think you intend. Language is quite important here as I don't think there would be so many objections to transexual women (with medical interventions) in women-only spaces. - Does anyone ever get asked to produce a GRC for access to a women-only space? I can imagine that it could happen for some longer term groups, e.g. women-only sexual assault/rape support groups, but I find it hard to imagine that anyone is demanding it for access to women-only changing rooms or toilets or train carriages etc
On the latter, the ability to obtain a GRC may then be a bit of a red herring, unless it began to be used aggressively by bad actors to gain access - man, with no genuine gender dysphoria and who would otherwise not be considered obviously trans in any way waves a GRC certificate to force entry to these areas. This is, of course, possible and requires some kind of safeguarding although I can see that becomes hard to do.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
It's quite a claim from Biden that giving Ukraine enough weaponry to defeat Russia more quickly would break up the EU.
There is massive resistance to giving Ukraine western fighter jets, longer range missiles and western tanks.
Where that massive resistance is located is not clear.
Had we either suitable tanks or suitable aircraft, I wonder if we would have supplied by now. Liz Truss might have signed it off; not sure about Rishi.
I wonder about Sea Kings, though. We have publicly supplied 3 (bought back from a dealer) as Air Sea Rescue, yet it is a platform that did most of the heavy work in the Falklands War, was our key anti-submarine asset for decades (carrying 4 torpedoes + dipping sonar), can carry a (UK size) platoon of ~26 troops, and has in the past been a platform for missiles such as Exocet. Very useful for all sorts of things if someone gave them more than three.
There's a lot of useful potential there that has not been much commented on. And 10 crews trained for 3 helicopters. Hmmm.
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Only if the sex offender tells the police first. And why would they do that?
I was somewhat alarmed by the suggestion in your header that the Scotland bill will drive a coach and horses through the disclosure system and indeed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by giving someone a "clean slate". There is nothing I can see in the Bill that would have that effect. What you say would only be correct if this currently happens for those that receive certificates under the 2004 Act and I do not believe that it does. Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act provides: "(2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards)."
The consequences of a certificate under the 2004 Act are set out in ss9-21 of the 2004 Act. These will remain the law in Scotland after the bill has passed (as it inevitably will).
The question is therefore whether there is any evidence that the provisions of s 9(1) (put shortly that a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes) have caused problems in the last 8 years or whether broadening the category of people with a GRC by reducing the criteria makes that likely. I am not aware of such evidence but I can certainly see the risk that making the process easier would give an open door for evil men to exploit. I just can't help feeling that there has been far more heat than light on this.
The issue is this. Under the DBS scheme there is a Sensitive Applications Process for those with a GRC. This relies on the person with a GRC making available to the team doing the checking their previous identity and any previous convictions so that they can be attached to their new identity. It is entirely reliant on the good faith and honesty of the sex offender.
But if a sex offender does not do that the DBS check I will come back "clean". That is the loophole.
An employer cannot ask if someone has a GRC because they may be guilty of discrimination. Another body who knows that the applicant has a GRC may also be in breach of the law by revealing this. So the DBS system relies entirely on a sex offender being honest.
There has as you know been concern in Scotland about sex offenders changing their name and failing to notify the police of this. So what do you think are the chances of these people being honest with the DBS service?
That ought, legislatively, to be an easy fix - has that actively been prevented, or just not properly debated ?
Last night Holyrood voted down the amendment which sought to address this. The only amendment which was passed was one which relies on only certain categories of sex offenders (not all of them) informing the police of their wish to obtain a GRC. In other words, it does not deal with the issue at all.
Was the amendment (the one voted down) proposing a cross-check against criminal records as a routine part of the GRC process?
"The law requires you to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process your application correctly and return accurate results. The DBS have a process to allow you to disclose previous gender/name information to the DBS only. This information does not need to be revealed on the DBS application form or to anyone else. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’."
It seems like the only advantage this Sensitive Applications Process gives is that it "will ensure that any previous gender/name is not released on the DBS certificate, unless permission is provided."
But, say someone (with criminal convictions) gets married and changes their name and moves house. The law requires them to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS - but just like Cyclefree's sex offender with a GRC- this relies on the good faith and honesty of the applicant, no?
Is there any difference between someone with a GRC, and anyone else who has changed their name for whatever reason, except that someone with a GRC will find it easier to have previous names kept hidden from anyone except the DBS?
I must be missing something which hasn't been explained in the header.
One thing that happens with medical records is that you get a new NHS number (on demand, don't need a GRC, just notify change of gender to GP) but that relevant things from yur old records are copied across to your new ones.
It would be sensible to have a similar process for e.g. criminal records, particularly sexual assault. You can have youe new ID, but it will also result in creation of new records under that ID for past, unspent, convictions.
That the UK has been badly mismanaged by successive mostly Tory governments? Sure
That the UK could be fixed by more extreme Tory mismanagement? No
It is clear now that the UK’s economic model was permanently damaged in 2007 by the GFC. We had been outclassing our peers until then, after that we fell behind in multiple ways. And what was damaged in 2007 was then smashed by Covid
The Tories - and Brexit - have not helped, but the failing is more fundamental than party politics
Sure. You were wrong to support Brexit. But agreed that the failing can't be explained in party political terms. Could it be anything to do with the British economy balancing on a financial sector that is reaching ever higher into the sky in a small area of a big city on the Thames?
To expand on my previous comment a little it seemed to me that the designers of the 2004 Act had a choice. They could either have made gender alteration relatively easy but then built in a series of safeguards to protect vulnerable women (making the certificate much less that the "for all purposes" provision in s9 I quoted earlier) or they could forego the safeguards but make obtaining a certificate more difficult requiring substantial commitment, medical intervention if not actual surgery, and an objective assessment. The drafters of the 2004 Act went for the latter option.
I would say in passing neither of these options is perfect or incapable of exploitation. People born men have obtained GRCs under the 2004 regime and then committed sexual assaults. Sports in particular have struggled with the implications of gender reassignation with historic hormonal advantages. But the solution was balanced and the evidence is that it has caused relatively little trouble.
What the Scottish bill is doing is undoing one part of that compromise (the safeguards) without offering any alternative. This is, in fairness to the Scottish government, in part because putting in other safeguards (such as excluding those who have GRCs from specific areas without further checks) are beyond their power. The courts have been very clear that the rights given by the Equality Act are reserved and beyond their power to change. This is one of the reasons so many of the amendments were voted down last night. Any attempt to impose such restrictions would make the bill vulnerable to judicial challenge.
I can see the frustration. If you are of the view that transsexuals are unfairly treated by the medicalisation of their condition and want to change things you are stuck between a rock and hard place. What Nicola Sturgeon in particular has done is to resolve this tension by denying that there is a problem at all. the safeguards in the 2004 Act were simply not necessary. Many women with experience in these matters have been outraged by this, that hard won rights brought in to protect women are being thought to be less important than the rights of transsexuals.
A potential solution is that the UK government could amend the 2004 Act to impose restrictions on a certificate granted by the Scottish authorities imposing different safeguards. Kemi Badenoch has already hinted that England may do so if this legislation comes into force but this does not have to be a confrontational issue. It would be better if the governments worked together to resolve this as they keep promising (and failing) to do.
On your construction it seems then that it’s up to HMG/Badenoch to facilitate a compromise on this issue? That would be a notable first for this bunch.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are far too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
That hauntings are common suggests that the cause is common to all the observers involved - i.e. humans faulty perceptions and our brain's eagerness to creatively fill in the gaps.
If they were less common it would make it harder to dismiss them, as the cause would have to be more specific.
By your logic, if 300 million people saw aliens landing then it would be easier to dismiss that, than a UFO spotted by 30 people
My guess is that ghosts have complex and multiple explanations, from subsonics to hallucinations. A hardcore are much more difficult to dissect. @RochdalePioneers’s might be one such
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are far too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
That hauntings are common suggests that the cause is common to all the observers involved - i.e. humans faulty perceptions and our brain's eagerness to creatively fill in the gaps.
If they were less common it would make it harder to dismiss them, as the cause would have to be more specific.
There was quite a debate in Scotland (at least) a couple of centuries back about the errors of perception and mind leading to the notion of ghosts. DAvid Brewster for one. A quick google finds this:
I didn't realise this but Ukraine for the first time will celebrate Christmas on 25th December. It had previously used the Russian date of 7th January. Yet another way that Ukraine has seemingly irreversibly switched to looking westwards. This was a country that prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 had 80% of the population view Russia favourably.
You seem to like the idea that foreigners have seen the light and started to follow the western way.
I was about to caution you not to rely on the Spectator for information about what's going on in Christian Orthodoxy, but the Spectator article doesn't say what you think. They say "millions of Ukrainians". That is not the same as "Ukraine".
For background, read up on the Moscow-Constantinople schism of 2018.
Other useful info:
1. Belief in Armageddon, the end of days, call it what you like, is MUCH bigger THROUGHOUT Orthodoxy than it is in most (albeit not all) of Roman Catholicism. This includes all flavours of both Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy. It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war. It's all about suffering, the soul, the end of days. Stuff like that is very big in that area of the world - Russia AND its "edge" - and it has been for centuries.
2. Both the Vatican and elements within US-based evangelical Protestantism are salivating at the 2018 (and ongoing) schism and they are angling for gaining converts.
3. Watch certain Orthodox religious buildings in Kiev, and two in particular: the Monastery of the Caves (in possession of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate) and St Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery (in possession of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine since 2018). The Ukrainian security service (SBU) raided the MotC last month.
4. A fundamental belief in Russian Orthodoxy is that "Moscow is the third Rome" (this is why the Russian monarchs styled themselves "Tsars", i.e. Caesars), and to this there is added the statement "and there shall be no fourth". How this is being related to or updated in the part of Ukrainian Orthodoxy that has gone out of communion with Russian Orthodoxy is not something I've studied, but I can tell you from first principles that they will NOT be taking their ideas in a Whiggish direction. See point 1.
5. Then there's the St Alexander Nevsky Church in Jerusalem, close to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
I didn't express an opinion at all. I only commented on the changing nature of Ukraine that has been caused by the Russian invasion.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One thing I took from the Joe and Zel show yesterday - perhaps wrongly but I did - is the US doesn't fear Putin going nuclear. That risk has been assessed as low to negligible - assessed correctly imo fwiw.
Much more reassuring is that we haven’t had a WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! from the resident PB conflagration-o-meter for a while.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
To expand on my previous comment a little it seemed to me that the designers of the 2004 Act had a choice. They could either have made gender alteration relatively easy but then built in a series of safeguards to protect vulnerable women (making the certificate much less that the "for all purposes" provision in s9 I quoted earlier) or they could forego the safeguards but make obtaining a certificate more difficult requiring substantial commitment, medical intervention if not actual surgery, and an objective assessment. The drafters of the 2004 Act went for the latter option.
I would say in passing neither of these options is perfect or incapable of exploitation. People born men have obtained GRCs under the 2004 regime and then committed sexual assaults. Sports in particular have struggled with the implications of gender reassignation with historic hormonal advantages. But the solution was balanced and the evidence is that it has caused relatively little trouble.
What the Scottish bill is doing is undoing one part of that compromise (the safeguards) without offering any alternative. This is, in fairness to the Scottish government, in part because putting in other safeguards (such as excluding those who have GRCs from specific areas without further checks) are beyond their power. The courts have been very clear that the rights given by the Equality Act are reserved and beyond their power to change. This is one of the reasons so many of the amendments were voted down last night. Any attempt to impose such restrictions would make the bill vulnerable to judicial challenge.
I can see the frustration. If you are of the view that transsexuals are unfairly treated by the medicalisation of their condition and want to change things you are stuck between a rock and hard place. What Nicola Sturgeon in particular has done is to resolve this tension by denying that there is a problem at all. the safeguards in the 2004 Act were simply not necessary. Many women with experience in these matters have been outraged by this, that hard won rights brought in to protect women are being thought to be less important than the rights of transsexuals.
A potential solution is that the UK government could amend the 2004 Act to impose restrictions on a certificate granted by the Scottish authorities imposing different safeguards. Kemi Badenoch has already hinted that England may do so if this legislation comes into force but this does not have to be a confrontational issue. It would be better if the governments worked together to resolve this as they keep promising (and failing) to do.
On your construction it seems then that it’s up to HMG/Badenoch to facilitate a compromise on this issue? That would be a notable first for this bunch.
That was my reaction too to DavidL's very interesting comments which seem to get at at least part of the root of the issue here. Yet the ScoTories seem relentlessly bent on opposition rather than this approach, from what little I have read. Whether this is the view in London remains to be seen, but noises about refusing to recognise the GRCs south of the border don't sound promising (though I don't understand why they recognise GRCs from other states in that case).
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
It's quite a claim from Biden that giving Ukraine enough weaponry to defeat Russia more quickly would break up the EU.
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Only if the sex offender tells the police first. And why would they do that?
I was somewhat alarmed by the suggestion in your header that the Scotland bill will drive a coach and horses through the disclosure system and indeed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by giving someone a "clean slate". There is nothing I can see in the Bill that would have that effect. What you say would only be correct if this currently happens for those that receive certificates under the 2004 Act and I do not believe that it does. Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act provides: "(2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards)."
The consequences of a certificate under the 2004 Act are set out in ss9-21 of the 2004 Act. These will remain the law in Scotland after the bill has passed (as it inevitably will).
The question is therefore whether there is any evidence that the provisions of s 9(1) (put shortly that a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes) have caused problems in the last 8 years or whether broadening the category of people with a GRC by reducing the criteria makes that likely. I am not aware of such evidence but I can certainly see the risk that making the process easier would give an open door for evil men to exploit. I just can't help feeling that there has been far more heat than light on this.
The issue is this. Under the DBS scheme there is a Sensitive Applications Process for those with a GRC. This relies on the person with a GRC making available to the team doing the checking their previous identity and any previous convictions so that they can be attached to their new identity. It is entirely reliant on the good faith and honesty of the sex offender.
But if a sex offender does not do that the DBS check I will come back "clean". That is the loophole.
An employer cannot ask if someone has a GRC because they may be guilty of discrimination. Another body who knows that the applicant has a GRC may also be in breach of the law by revealing this. So the DBS system relies entirely on a sex offender being honest.
There has as you know been concern in Scotland about sex offenders changing their name and failing to notify the police of this. So what do you think are the chances of these people being honest with the DBS service?
That ought, legislatively, to be an easy fix - has that actively been prevented, or just not properly debated ?
Last night Holyrood voted down the amendment which sought to address this. The only amendment which was passed was one which relies on only certain categories of sex offenders (not all of them) informing the police of their wish to obtain a GRC. In other words, it does not deal with the issue at all.
Was the amendment (the one voted down) proposing a cross-check against criminal records as a routine part of the GRC process?
"The law requires you to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process your application correctly and return accurate results. The DBS have a process to allow you to disclose previous gender/name information to the DBS only. This information does not need to be revealed on the DBS application form or to anyone else. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’."
It seems like the only advantage this Sensitive Applications Process gives is that it "will ensure that any previous gender/name is not released on the DBS certificate, unless permission is provided."
But, say someone (with criminal convictions) gets married and changes their name and moves house. The law requires them to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS - but just like Cyclefree's sex offender with a GRC- this relies on the good faith and honesty of the applicant, no?
Is there any difference between someone with a GRC, and anyone else who has changed their name for whatever reason, except that someone with a GRC will find it easier to have previous names kept hidden from anyone except the DBS?
I must be missing something which hasn't been explained in the header.
That's what I'm trying to figure out too. How big is the risk we're concerned about and how in practice will it be mitigated? In particular how is the amendment voted down superior to the one that's gone through?
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
It's quite a claim from Biden that giving Ukraine enough weaponry to defeat Russia more quickly would break up the EU.
There is massive resistance to giving Ukraine western fighter jets, longer range missiles and western tanks.
Where that massive resistance is located is not clear.
Had we either suitable tanks or suitable aircraft, I wonder if we would have supplied by now. Liz Truss might have signed it off; not sure about Rishi.
I wonder about Sea Kings, though. We have publicly supplied 3 (bought back from a dealer) as Air Sea Rescue, yet it is a platform that did most of the heavy work in the Falklands War, was our key anti-submarine asset for decades (carrying 4 torpedoes + dipping sonar), can carry a (UK size) platoon of ~26 troops, and has in the past been a platform for missiles such as Exocet. Very useful for all sorts of things if someone gave them more than three.
There's a lot of useful potential there that has not been much commented on. And 10 crews trained for 3 helicopters. Hmmm.
Due to politics and other issues, the western MBTs available in quantity in the immediate future would be either M1 or Leopard 1/2
Germany has been stated to blocking Leopards to Ukraine - because of end user agreements they retain control after sale.
The US has sold M1s all over the world - it’s a very modular system, so versions without the sensitive electronics and the fanciest armour arrays already exist.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
The UK along with most of the world refused to recognise Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. It's not just territory "claimed" by Ukraine.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
I didn't realise this but Ukraine for the first time will celebrate Christmas on 25th December. It had previously used the Russian date of 7th January. Yet another way that Ukraine has seemingly irreversibly switched to looking westwards. This was a country that prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 had 80% of the population view Russia favourably.
You seem to like the idea that foreigners have seen the light and started to follow the western way.
I was about to caution you not to rely on the Spectator for information about what's going on in Christian Orthodoxy, but the Spectator article doesn't say what you think. They say "millions of Ukrainians". That is not the same as "Ukraine".
For background, read up on the Moscow-Constantinople schism of 2018.
Other useful info:
1. Belief in Armageddon, the end of days, call it what you like, is MUCH bigger THROUGHOUT Orthodoxy than it is in most (albeit not all) of Roman Catholicism. This includes all flavours of both Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy. It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war. It's all about suffering, the soul, the end of days. Stuff like that is very big in that area of the world - Russia AND its "edge" - and it has been for centuries.
2. Both the Vatican and elements within US-based evangelical Protestantism are salivating at the 2018 (and ongoing) schism and they are angling for gaining converts.
3. Watch certain Orthodox religious buildings in Kiev, and two in particular: the Monastery of the Caves (in possession of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate) and St Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery (in possession of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine since 2018). The Ukrainian security service (SBU) raided the MotC last month.
4. A fundamental belief in Russian Orthodoxy is that "Moscow is the third Rome" (this is why the Russian monarchs styled themselves "Tsars", i.e. Caesars), and to this there is added the statement "and there shall be no fourth". How this is being related to or updated in the part of Ukrainian Orthodoxy that has gone out of communion with Russian Orthodoxy is not something I've studied, but I can tell you from first principles that they will NOT be taking their ideas in a Whiggish direction. See point 1.
5. Then there's the St Alexander Nevsky Church in Jerusalem, close to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
I didn't express an opinion at all. I only commented on the changing nature of Ukraine that has been caused by the Russian invasion.
Some people are triggered by the idea that Ukraine is turning to the West and that many Russian speaking Ukrainians are not Greater Russian Nationalists.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One thing I took from the Joe and Zel show yesterday - perhaps wrongly but I did - is the US doesn't fear Putin going nuclear. That risk has been assessed as low to negligible - assessed correctly imo fwiw.
Much more reassuring is that we haven’t had a WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! from the resident PB conflagration-o-meter for a while.
Yes, I'd noticed this. It's a good litmus. Silence is indeed golden on this one.
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Only if the sex offender tells the police first. And why would they do that?
I was somewhat alarmed by the suggestion in your header that the Scotland bill will drive a coach and horses through the disclosure system and indeed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by giving someone a "clean slate". There is nothing I can see in the Bill that would have that effect. What you say would only be correct if this currently happens for those that receive certificates under the 2004 Act and I do not believe that it does. Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act provides: "(2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards)."
The consequences of a certificate under the 2004 Act are set out in ss9-21 of the 2004 Act. These will remain the law in Scotland after the bill has passed (as it inevitably will).
The question is therefore whether there is any evidence that the provisions of s 9(1) (put shortly that a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes) have caused problems in the last 8 years or whether broadening the category of people with a GRC by reducing the criteria makes that likely. I am not aware of such evidence but I can certainly see the risk that making the process easier would give an open door for evil men to exploit. I just can't help feeling that there has been far more heat than light on this.
The issue is this. Under the DBS scheme there is a Sensitive Applications Process for those with a GRC. This relies on the person with a GRC making available to the team doing the checking their previous identity and any previous convictions so that they can be attached to their new identity. It is entirely reliant on the good faith and honesty of the sex offender.
But if a sex offender does not do that the DBS check I will come back "clean". That is the loophole.
An employer cannot ask if someone has a GRC because they may be guilty of discrimination. Another body who knows that the applicant has a GRC may also be in breach of the law by revealing this. So the DBS system relies entirely on a sex offender being honest.
There has as you know been concern in Scotland about sex offenders changing their name and failing to notify the police of this. So what do you think are the chances of these people being honest with the DBS service?
That ought, legislatively, to be an easy fix - has that actively been prevented, or just not properly debated ?
Last night Holyrood voted down the amendment which sought to address this. The only amendment which was passed was one which relies on only certain categories of sex offenders (not all of them) informing the police of their wish to obtain a GRC. In other words, it does not deal with the issue at all.
Was the amendment (the one voted down) proposing a cross-check against criminal records as a routine part of the GRC process?
"The law requires you to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process your application correctly and return accurate results. The DBS have a process to allow you to disclose previous gender/name information to the DBS only. This information does not need to be revealed on the DBS application form or to anyone else. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’."
It seems like the only advantage this Sensitive Applications Process gives is that it "will ensure that any previous gender/name is not released on the DBS certificate, unless permission is provided."
But, say someone (with criminal convictions) gets married and changes their name and moves house. The law requires them to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS - but just like Cyclefree's sex offender with a GRC- this relies on the good faith and honesty of the applicant, no?
Is there any difference between someone with a GRC, and anyone else who has changed their name for whatever reason, except that someone with a GRC will find it easier to have previous names kept hidden from anyone except the DBS?
I must be missing something which hasn't been explained in the header.
One thing that happens with medical records is that you get a new NHS number (on demand, don't need a GRC, just notify change of gender to GP) but that relevant things from yur old records are copied across to your new ones.
It would be sensible to have a similar process for e.g. criminal records, particularly sexual assault. You can have youe new ID, but it will also result in creation of new records under that ID for past, unspent, convictions.
OK. But my question is, what practical difference is there when applying for a criminal records check between someone who has changed their name, and someone who has changed their gender? Both are required by law to give all previous names and addresses. If the point is simply to try and fraudulently get a clean DBS check, it would seem simpler to just change your name and lie about previous names, than change your gender and name and lie about it?
The Sensitive Applications Process that Cyclefree mentions, is obviously NOT the way to do it, it is a way to admit your previous names to the DBS. This is pretty obvious, so it makes me suspect that Cyclefree is arguing in bad faith here.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I didn't realise this but Ukraine for the first time will celebrate Christmas on 25th December. It had previously used the Russian date of 7th January. Yet another way that Ukraine has seemingly irreversibly switched to looking westwards. This was a country that prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 had 80% of the population view Russia favourably.
You seem to like the idea that foreigners have seen the light and started to follow the western way.
I was about to caution you not to rely on the Spectator for information about what's going on in Christian Orthodoxy, but the Spectator article doesn't say what you think. They say "millions of Ukrainians". That is not the same as "Ukraine".
For background, read up on the Moscow-Constantinople schism of 2018.
Other useful info:
1. Belief in Armageddon, the end of days, call it what you like, is MUCH bigger THROUGHOUT Orthodoxy than it is in most (albeit not all) of Roman Catholicism. This includes all flavours of both Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy. It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war. It's all about suffering, the soul, the end of days. Stuff like that is very big in that area of the world - Russia AND its "edge" - and it has been for centuries.
2. Both the Vatican and elements within US-based evangelical Protestantism are salivating at the 2018 (and ongoing) schism and they are angling for gaining converts.
3. Watch certain Orthodox religious buildings in Kiev, and two in particular: the Monastery of the Caves (in possession of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate) and St Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery (in possession of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine since 2018). The Ukrainian security service (SBU) raided the MotC last month.
4. A fundamental belief in Russian Orthodoxy is that "Moscow is the third Rome" (this is why the Russian monarchs styled themselves "Tsars", i.e. Caesars), and to this there is added the statement "and there shall be no fourth". How this is being related to or updated in the part of Ukrainian Orthodoxy that has gone out of communion with Russian Orthodoxy is not something I've studied, but I can tell you from first principles that they will NOT be taking their ideas in a Whiggish direction. See point 1.
5. Then there's the St Alexander Nevsky Church in Jerusalem, close to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
10% of Ukrainians are already Catholic but only 2% Protestant.
I doubt many if any would become evangelicals, the Eastern Orthodox Church has far more in common with Roman Catholicism than Protestant evangelicals. Even high church Anglicans would be closer
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are far too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
That hauntings are common suggests that the cause is common to all the observers involved - i.e. humans faulty perceptions and our brain's eagerness to creatively fill in the gaps.
If they were less common it would make it harder to dismiss them, as the cause would have to be more specific.
True. Also there's the factor, once there's been one perceived sighting, of confirmation bias.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
I’m multitasking. On the question of AI, this tweet has caused a modest twitkerfuffle today. The consensus is that it is nonsense but still worrying
Ah, the new CryptoBro pitch.
So much bullshit. On one slide…
I have some low mileage bridges to sell you. Owned by a little old lady etc…
Yes, the reference to ‘crypto’ is a huge flashing red light
Nonetheless there might be some truths in the bullshit. The idea that Bing might incorporate ChatGPT for instance. That makes total sense (Microsoft are majorly invested in OpenAI - who gave us ChatGPT).
Suddenly Google would have a potentially lethal competitor. That would force them to use their own AI. Thus, capitalist competition will push us to the Singularity
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I think British war aims have been very clear.
1. Russia must fail and must be seen to fail. 2. Defending Ukraine's sovereignty means accepting that it is there choice to decide whether trading land for peace is the best outcome for them, so it's not for us to dictate terms to them.
The position of some other EU and NATO members has been less clear, with a degree of willingness to favour an early end to hostilities rather than ensure short-term difficulties for the sake of long-term benefit (such as ensuring there is no reward for aggression).
The decision has been taken to coax the more reluctant countries along, rather than to break unity and go it alone on providing more support for Ukraine.
That's frustrating for someone like me who supports providing as much support as we can to aid Ukraine, but I can see the diplomatic sense in it.
The contentious step will actually come later - assuming Ukraine is successful in liberating all occupied territory, and that the regime in Russia is unwilling to accept defeat, to what extent is Ukraine supported to carry out retaliatory attacks on Russia in reply to continued Russian artillery shelling and missile attacks?
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
I’m multitasking. On the question of AI, this tweet has caused a modest twitkerfuffle today. The consensus is that it is nonsense but still worrying
I suspect this one is nonsense - reads like Eric Feigl Ding has turned his attention to AI - but ChatGPT has convinced me that the computers replacing humans scenario is credible.
My daughter asked me a couple of days ago “if humans are still here in a million years what will we be like?” To which there is no feasible answer other than something straight out of science fiction. Indeed if humans are still here in a thousand years (or 200?) the same is true.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
I’m multitasking. On the question of AI, this tweet has caused a modest twitkerfuffle today. The consensus is that it is nonsense but still worrying
I suspect this one is nonsense - reads like Eric Feigl Ding has turned his attention to AI - but ChatGPT has convinced me that the computers replacing humans scenario is credible.
My daughter asked me a couple of days ago “if humans are still here in a million years what will we be like?” To which there is no feasible answer other than something straight out of science fiction. Indeed if humans are still here in a thousand years (or 200?) the same is true.
Yep, it’s not even a debate any more. Computers are gonna replace us. The only caveat is ‘unless we kill ourselves or the planet beforehand’
We must hope that Elon’s neuralink allows us to partner with the machines, as the alternative is worse
Make of that number what you will. However that invites a further comparison with the Winter War, where Finland inflicted an estd (Wiki) 125k-165k dead or missing on the USSR in 4 months.
Then Russia came back and won, and Finland lost 12-13% of Finland in the settlement.
Putin now says he wants an army of 1.5 million.
Ukraine has a relative to Russia 10x larger population (40 million: 130 million) than Finland did to the USSR (3.7 million: 170 million), and significant practical international support, which Finland did not.
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Only if the sex offender tells the police first. And why would they do that?
I was somewhat alarmed by the suggestion in your header that the Scotland bill will drive a coach and horses through the disclosure system and indeed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by giving someone a "clean slate". There is nothing I can see in the Bill that would have that effect. What you say would only be correct if this currently happens for those that receive certificates under the 2004 Act and I do not believe that it does. Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act provides: "(2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards)."
The consequences of a certificate under the 2004 Act are set out in ss9-21 of the 2004 Act. These will remain the law in Scotland after the bill has passed (as it inevitably will).
The question is therefore whether there is any evidence that the provisions of s 9(1) (put shortly that a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes) have caused problems in the last 8 years or whether broadening the category of people with a GRC by reducing the criteria makes that likely. I am not aware of such evidence but I can certainly see the risk that making the process easier would give an open door for evil men to exploit. I just can't help feeling that there has been far more heat than light on this.
The issue is this. Under the DBS scheme there is a Sensitive Applications Process for those with a GRC. This relies on the person with a GRC making available to the team doing the checking their previous identity and any previous convictions so that they can be attached to their new identity. It is entirely reliant on the good faith and honesty of the sex offender.
But if a sex offender does not do that the DBS check I will come back "clean". That is the loophole.
An employer cannot ask if someone has a GRC because they may be guilty of discrimination. Another body who knows that the applicant has a GRC may also be in breach of the law by revealing this. So the DBS system relies entirely on a sex offender being honest.
There has as you know been concern in Scotland about sex offenders changing their name and failing to notify the police of this. So what do you think are the chances of these people being honest with the DBS service?
That ought, legislatively, to be an easy fix - has that actively been prevented, or just not properly debated ?
Last night Holyrood voted down the amendment which sought to address this. The only amendment which was passed was one which relies on only certain categories of sex offenders (not all of them) informing the police of their wish to obtain a GRC. In other words, it does not deal with the issue at all.
Was the amendment (the one voted down) proposing a cross-check against criminal records as a routine part of the GRC process?
"The law requires you to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process your application correctly and return accurate results. The DBS have a process to allow you to disclose previous gender/name information to the DBS only. This information does not need to be revealed on the DBS application form or to anyone else. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’."
It seems like the only advantage this Sensitive Applications Process gives is that it "will ensure that any previous gender/name is not released on the DBS certificate, unless permission is provided."
But, say someone (with criminal convictions) gets married and changes their name and moves house. The law requires them to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS - but just like Cyclefree's sex offender with a GRC- this relies on the good faith and honesty of the applicant, no?
Is there any difference between someone with a GRC, and anyone else who has changed their name for whatever reason, except that someone with a GRC will find it easier to have previous names kept hidden from anyone except the DBS?
I must be missing something which hasn't been explained in the header.
One thing that happens with medical records is that you get a new NHS number (on demand, don't need a GRC, just notify change of gender to GP) but that relevant things from yur old records are copied across to your new ones.
It would be sensible to have a similar process for e.g. criminal records, particularly sexual assault. You can have youe new ID, but it will also result in creation of new records under that ID for past, unspent, convictions.
OK. But my question is, what practical difference is there when applying for a criminal records check between someone who has changed their name, and someone who has changed their gender? Both are required by law to give all previous names and addresses. If the point is simply to try and fraudulently get a clean DBS check, it would seem simpler to just change your name and lie about previous names, than change your gender and name and lie about it?
The Sensitive Applications Process that Cyclefree mentions, is obviously NOT the way to do it, it is a way to admit your previous names to the DBS. This is pretty obvious, so it makes me suspect that Cyclefree is arguing in bad faith here.
ETA: TLDR - I don't really know anything about this. I'll leave the below, but otherwise shut up about it.
Yes. The difference is that it would not be illegal for a third party to disclose previous identity of someone who had changed name to the DBS (afaik). It would be illegal to knowingly disclose previous identity of someome who had changed gender (unless there is an exception for this purpose that I do not know about - could come under the general defences of preventing a greater crime?).
All somewhat academic as it requires someone in both cases to know both the previous identity and the DBS application. The interesting point might be that you would be able to relatively easily get a new ID with relevant documentation to show employer your right to work/proof of ID etc from a GRC process and the same 'clean' name would be passed to DBS. Simply changing name would be harder to document enough to keep employer happy about your ID without also disclosing your previous ID to employer (which would then likely be disclosed to the DBS).
Very much not an expert here on DBS, as is probably readily apparent!
I wonder about Sea Kings, though. We have publicly supplied 3 (bought back from a dealer) as Air Sea Rescue, yet it is a platform that did most of the heavy work in the Falklands War, was our key anti-submarine asset for decades (carrying 4 torpedoes + dipping sonar), can carry a (UK size) platoon of ~26 troops, and has in the past been a platform for missiles such as Exocet. Very useful for all sorts of things if someone gave them more than three.
.
We Sea Kings of Ukraine are:
XZ920 HAS5 1979 (already delivered)
XV666 HU5 1970
ZA166 HAS5 1982
HeliOps owned them to train the Marinefliegerkommando Sea King drivers so the HAS models have had all of the ASW gear long since removed. XV666 never had any ASW capability. They have been "given" to Ukraine for SAR ops.
AFU already operate 103 Mi-8/Mi-17 so if the intent were to improve their RW lift capacity then the move would have been to buy them more Mi-8/Mi-17. That is a type with which they are already intimately familiar. If the purpose is to created a lucrative business opportunity for #globalbritain then give them SKs which can be supported for technical support and training by exactly one (British) company.
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
That 60' version was filmed in Argentina standing in for the Russian steppes. The Argentinians still had several thousand officers able to ride.
The Ride to Dubno was about my favourite scene as a kid. Hope they have done it justice....
Make of that number what you will. However that invites a further comparison with the Winter War, where Finland inflicted an estd (Wiki) 125k-165k dead or missing on the USSR in 4 months.
Then Russia came back and won, and Finland lost 12-13% of Finland in the settlement.
Putin now says he wants an army of 1.5 million.
Ukraine has a relative to Russia 10x larger population (40 million: 130 million) than Finland did to the USSR (3.7 million: 170 million), and significant practical international support, which Finland did not.
There are stories (no idea if they are true or not), that the bodies of Russian mobolised soldiers are being found with coloured armbands; one colour meaning HIV, another for hepatitis, and another for tuberculosis. If it's true, I reckon it means the Russians are keeping any barely-capable troops back, and just using literal cannon fodder at the moment. The guys they believe they can afford to lose.
Or if they're the best they've got, it won't matter if they have 1.5 million or 3 million.
Ireland have had gender self-ID since 2015 and the only differences I can work out where the Scottish scheme is more permissive is that 16-18 year olds do not require parent/guardian approval. What's happened in Ireland to demonstrate that gender self-ID harms women? Or is Scotland different to Ireland so that the same law will have horrible consequences? Or is the law different and I've just missed it completely?
A very good question.
An element must be the current flailing around by Tories and British nationalists for anything to use in their woke wars and to beat the SG on the head with - and Ireland is not relevant to that so they ignore it, in contrast to Scotland. But that's certainly only part of it; look at the SLDs for one thing, they're as unionist as an Ian Paisley teddy bear.
Ireland is a foreign country and nothing to go with the UK government.
Exactly. Fianna Fáil aren't part of the Conservative Party. Not much kudos for the Tories in attacking Fine Gael, and lots of diplomatic grief.
But this does raise some interesting questions about what happens in NI.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One thing I took from the Joe and Zel show yesterday - perhaps wrongly but I did - is the US doesn't fear Putin going nuclear. That risk has been assessed as low to negligible - assessed correctly imo fwiw.
Much more reassuring is that we haven’t had a WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! from the resident PB conflagration-o-meter for a while.
Yes, I'd noticed this. It's a good litmus. Silence is indeed golden on this one.
I dunno. I'm generally reassured when Leonodamus says we're all going to die.
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
¡Viva la Muerte!
Edit: Has Poo Tin been reading Red Storm Rising? Just before they launch WWIII, in the book, the Russian release a digitally restored and tuned up version of Alexander Nevsky to get the masses all fired up..
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
Ireland have had gender self-ID since 2015 and the only differences I can work out where the Scottish scheme is more permissive is that 16-18 year olds do not require parent/guardian approval. What's happened in Ireland to demonstrate that gender self-ID harms women? Or is Scotland different to Ireland so that the same law will have horrible consequences? Or is the law different and I've just missed it completely?
A very good question.
An element must be the current flailing around by Tories and British nationalists for anything to use in their woke wars and to beat the SG on the head with - and Ireland is not relevant to that so they ignore it, in contrast to Scotland. But that's certainly only part of it; look at the SLDs for one thing, they're as unionist as an Ian Paisley teddy bear.
Ireland is a foreign country and nothing to go with the UK government.
Exactly. Fianna Fáil aren't part of the Conservative Party. Not much kudos for the Tories in attacking Fine Gael, and lots of diplomatic grief.
But this does raise some interesting questions about what happens in NI.
Fine Gael are basically the Tories sister party in Ireland, the party that backed the Anglo Irish Treaty too, so obviously the Tories aren't going to attack them.
Sunak would far rather Varadkar and Martin stay in power than Sinn Fein
Make of that number what you will. However that invites a further comparison with the Winter War, where Finland inflicted an estd (Wiki) 125k-165k dead or missing on the USSR in 4 months.
Then Russia came back and won, and Finland lost 12-13% of Finland in the settlement.
Putin now says he wants an army of 1.5 million.
Ukraine has a relative to Russia 10x larger population (40 million: 130 million) than Finland did to the USSR (3.7 million: 170 million), and significant practical international support, which Finland did not.
There are stories (no idea if they are true or not), that the bodies of Russian mobolised soldiers are being found with coloured armbands; one colour meaning HIV, another for hepatitis, and another for tuberculosis. If it's true, I reckon it means the Russians are keeping any barely-capable troops back, and just using literal cannon fodder at the moment. The guys they believe they can afford to lose.
Or if they're the best they've got, it won't matter if they have 1.5 million or 3 million.
This whole war is so unutterably tragic.
Broadly speaking it looks like one-third of the mobilised were sent straight to hold the front and the other two-thirds are being trained in Russia and Belarus, presumably for a new year/spring offensive.
The ideal response from Ukraine is to be in a position to launch their own offensive, after exhausting Russian reinforcements, before the Russian troops currently training are ready. This implies more support to Ukraine, more quickly.
There's a level of intensity of conflict that Russia seems able to sustain indefinitely. To bring the war to an end Ukraine will need to raise the intensity of conflict above that level.
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Only if the sex offender tells the police first. And why would they do that?
I was somewhat alarmed by the suggestion in your header that the Scotland bill will drive a coach and horses through the disclosure system and indeed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by giving someone a "clean slate". There is nothing I can see in the Bill that would have that effect. What you say would only be correct if this currently happens for those that receive certificates under the 2004 Act and I do not believe that it does. Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act provides: "(2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards)."
The consequences of a certificate under the 2004 Act are set out in ss9-21 of the 2004 Act. These will remain the law in Scotland after the bill has passed (as it inevitably will).
The question is therefore whether there is any evidence that the provisions of s 9(1) (put shortly that a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes) have caused problems in the last 8 years or whether broadening the category of people with a GRC by reducing the criteria makes that likely. I am not aware of such evidence but I can certainly see the risk that making the process easier would give an open door for evil men to exploit. I just can't help feeling that there has been far more heat than light on this.
The issue is this. Under the DBS scheme there is a Sensitive Applications Process for those with a GRC. This relies on the person with a GRC making available to the team doing the checking their previous identity and any previous convictions so that they can be attached to their new identity. It is entirely reliant on the good faith and honesty of the sex offender.
But if a sex offender does not do that the DBS check I will come back "clean". That is the loophole.
An employer cannot ask if someone has a GRC because they may be guilty of discrimination. Another body who knows that the applicant has a GRC may also be in breach of the law by revealing this. So the DBS system relies entirely on a sex offender being honest.
There has as you know been concern in Scotland about sex offenders changing their name and failing to notify the police of this. So what do you think are the chances of these people being honest with the DBS service?
That ought, legislatively, to be an easy fix - has that actively been prevented, or just not properly debated ?
Last night Holyrood voted down the amendment which sought to address this. The only amendment which was passed was one which relies on only certain categories of sex offenders (not all of them) informing the police of their wish to obtain a GRC. In other words, it does not deal with the issue at all.
Was the amendment (the one voted down) proposing a cross-check against criminal records as a routine part of the GRC process?
"The law requires you to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process your application correctly and return accurate results. The DBS have a process to allow you to disclose previous gender/name information to the DBS only. This information does not need to be revealed on the DBS application form or to anyone else. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’."
It seems like the only advantage this Sensitive Applications Process gives is that it "will ensure that any previous gender/name is not released on the DBS certificate, unless permission is provided."
But, say someone (with criminal convictions) gets married and changes their name and moves house. The law requires them to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS - but just like Cyclefree's sex offender with a GRC- this relies on the good faith and honesty of the applicant, no?
Is there any difference between someone with a GRC, and anyone else who has changed their name for whatever reason, except that someone with a GRC will find it easier to have previous names kept hidden from anyone except the DBS?
I must be missing something which hasn't been explained in the header.
One thing that happens with medical records is that you get a new NHS number (on demand, don't need a GRC, just notify change of gender to GP) but that relevant things from yur old records are copied across to your new ones.
It would be sensible to have a similar process for e.g. criminal records, particularly sexual assault. You can have youe new ID, but it will also result in creation of new records under that ID for past, unspent, convictions.
OK. But my question is, what practical difference is there when applying for a criminal records check between someone who has changed their name, and someone who has changed their gender? Both are required by law to give all previous names and addresses. If the point is simply to try and fraudulently get a clean DBS check, it would seem simpler to just change your name and lie about previous names, than change your gender and name and lie about it?
The Sensitive Applications Process that Cyclefree mentions, is obviously NOT the way to do it, it is a way to admit your previous names to the DBS. This is pretty obvious, so it makes me suspect that Cyclefree is arguing in bad faith here.
Yes. The difference is that it would not be illegal for a third party to disclose previous identity of someone who had changed name to the DBS (afaik). It would be illegal to knowingly disclose previous identity of someome who had changed gender (unless there is an exception for this purpose that I do not know about - could come under the general defences of preventing a greater crime?).
All somewhat academic as it requires someone in both cases to know both the previous identity and the DBS application. The interesting point might be that you would be able to relatively easily get a new ID with relevant documentation to show employer your right to work/proof of ID etc from a GRC process and the same 'clean' name would be passed to DBS. Simply changing name would be harder to document enough to keep employer happy about your ID without also disclosing your previous ID to employer (which would then likely be disclosed to the DBS).
Very much not an expert here on DBS, as is probably readily apparent!
OK, thanks for the explanation. Which documentation that employers need would be difficult to get? It's been a while since a worked in the UK, but I never needed more than a National Insurance number and a UK passport. People I know who have changed their name for various reasons have had no problems obtaining documentation including passports and NI in their new name - do these show an employer previous names?
A predictive thread about GPT4 (coming in early 2023, it is thought)
“With the algorithmic adjustment, the qualitative improvement from GPT-3 (vanilla) to GPT-4 is comparable to the improvement from GPT-2 to GPT-3. Since that was a rather big jump, I expect many will be stunned by GPT-4, especially those who expected strong diminishing returns.”
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
¡Viva la Muerte!
Edit: Has Poo Tin been reading Red Storm Rising? Just before they launch WWIII, in the book, the Russian release a digitally restored and tuned up version of Alexander Nevsky to get the masses all fired up..
I don’t know the Russians (in Russia, I know several no longer there) enough to dismiss the death cult stuff completely, but.
We tend to exaggerate how different other nations or cultures are to us when they are on the other side of a conflict. History generally shows that while a people can get swept up in an extremist wave for a period of time, the true believers are usually a minority and most people just want a normal healthy life and no trouble with the neighbours. So I remain sceptical that Putin can mobilise millions to fight and die in a war of his choosing with no comeback.
The idea Russia is a death cult that will stop at nothing seems to me to be repeating the mythologising that we previously indulged in with the Muslim world, with dictators like Saddam and indeed closer to home with the IRA.
EDIT: for clarity, I suspect there are a few in the inner circle who really do tick the death cult box.
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Only if the sex offender tells the police first. And why would they do that?
I was somewhat alarmed by the suggestion in your header that the Scotland bill will drive a coach and horses through the disclosure system and indeed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by giving someone a "clean slate". There is nothing I can see in the Bill that would have that effect. What you say would only be correct if this currently happens for those that receive certificates under the 2004 Act and I do not believe that it does. Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act provides: "(2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards)."
The consequences of a certificate under the 2004 Act are set out in ss9-21 of the 2004 Act. These will remain the law in Scotland after the bill has passed (as it inevitably will).
The question is therefore whether there is any evidence that the provisions of s 9(1) (put shortly that a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes) have caused problems in the last 8 years or whether broadening the category of people with a GRC by reducing the criteria makes that likely. I am not aware of such evidence but I can certainly see the risk that making the process easier would give an open door for evil men to exploit. I just can't help feeling that there has been far more heat than light on this.
The issue is this. Under the DBS scheme there is a Sensitive Applications Process for those with a GRC. This relies on the person with a GRC making available to the team doing the checking their previous identity and any previous convictions so that they can be attached to their new identity. It is entirely reliant on the good faith and honesty of the sex offender.
But if a sex offender does not do that the DBS check I will come back "clean". That is the loophole.
An employer cannot ask if someone has a GRC because they may be guilty of discrimination. Another body who knows that the applicant has a GRC may also be in breach of the law by revealing this. So the DBS system relies entirely on a sex offender being honest.
There has as you know been concern in Scotland about sex offenders changing their name and failing to notify the police of this. So what do you think are the chances of these people being honest with the DBS service?
That ought, legislatively, to be an easy fix - has that actively been prevented, or just not properly debated ?
Last night Holyrood voted down the amendment which sought to address this. The only amendment which was passed was one which relies on only certain categories of sex offenders (not all of them) informing the police of their wish to obtain a GRC. In other words, it does not deal with the issue at all.
Was the amendment (the one voted down) proposing a cross-check against criminal records as a routine part of the GRC process?
"The law requires you to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process your application correctly and return accurate results. The DBS have a process to allow you to disclose previous gender/name information to the DBS only. This information does not need to be revealed on the DBS application form or to anyone else. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’."
It seems like the only advantage this Sensitive Applications Process gives is that it "will ensure that any previous gender/name is not released on the DBS certificate, unless permission is provided."
But, say someone (with criminal convictions) gets married and changes their name and moves house. The law requires them to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS - but just like Cyclefree's sex offender with a GRC- this relies on the good faith and honesty of the applicant, no?
Is there any difference between someone with a GRC, and anyone else who has changed their name for whatever reason, except that someone with a GRC will find it easier to have previous names kept hidden from anyone except the DBS?
I must be missing something which hasn't been explained in the header.
One thing that happens with medical records is that you get a new NHS number (on demand, don't need a GRC, just notify change of gender to GP) but that relevant things from yur old records are copied across to your new ones.
It would be sensible to have a similar process for e.g. criminal records, particularly sexual assault. You can have youe new ID, but it will also result in creation of new records under that ID for past, unspent, convictions.
OK. But my question is, what practical difference is there when applying for a criminal records check between someone who has changed their name, and someone who has changed their gender? Both are required by law to give all previous names and addresses. If the point is simply to try and fraudulently get a clean DBS check, it would seem simpler to just change your name and lie about previous names, than change your gender and name and lie about it?
The Sensitive Applications Process that Cyclefree mentions, is obviously NOT the way to do it, it is a way to admit your previous names to the DBS. This is pretty obvious, so it makes me suspect that Cyclefree is arguing in bad faith here.
Yes. The difference is that it would not be illegal for a third party to disclose previous identity of someone who had changed name to the DBS (afaik). It would be illegal to knowingly disclose previous identity of someome who had changed gender (unless there is an exception for this purpose that I do not know about - could come under the general defences of preventing a greater crime?).
All somewhat academic as it requires someone in both cases to know both the previous identity and the DBS application. The interesting point might be that you would be able to relatively easily get a new ID with relevant documentation to show employer your right to work/proof of ID etc from a GRC process and the same 'clean' name would be passed to DBS. Simply changing name would be harder to document enough to keep employer happy about your ID without also disclosing your previous ID to employer (which would then likely be disclosed to the DBS).
Very much not an expert here on DBS, as is probably readily apparent!
OK, thanks for the explanation. Which documentation that employers need would be difficult to get? It's been a while since a worked in the UK, but I never needed more than a National Insurance number and a UK passport. People I know who have changed their name for various reasons have had no problems obtaining documentation including passports and NI in their new name - do these show an employer previous names?
No - which exactly how some scumbags have been evading background checks. Change their name legally and many of the systems can’t find you.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
I think that's a bit unfair to pacifism. If all of Russia's soldiers became pacifists then Putin's tyranny wouldn't last much longer.
Pacifists, if true to their convictions and not merely urging other people to be pacifists, have the courage to be the first to take this step, in the hope that their example will inspire others.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
I think that's a bit unfair to pacifism. If all of Russia's soldiers became pacifists then Putin's tyranny wouldn't last much longer.
Pacifists, if true to their convictions and not merely urging other people to be pacifists, have the courage to be the first to take this step, in the hope that their example will inspire others.
Orwell wrote about similar “pacifists” in relation to WWII
To expand on my previous comment a little it seemed to me that the designers of the 2004 Act had a choice. They could either have made gender alteration relatively easy but then built in a series of safeguards to protect vulnerable women (making the certificate much less that the "for all purposes" provision in s9 I quoted earlier) or they could forego the safeguards but make obtaining a certificate more difficult requiring substantial commitment, medical intervention if not actual surgery, and an objective assessment. The drafters of the 2004 Act went for the latter option.
I would say in passing neither of these options is perfect or incapable of exploitation. People born men have obtained GRCs under the 2004 regime and then committed sexual assaults. Sports in particular have struggled with the implications of gender reassignation with historic hormonal advantages. But the solution was balanced and the evidence is that it has caused relatively little trouble.
What the Scottish bill is doing is undoing one part of that compromise (the safeguards) without offering any alternative. This is, in fairness to the Scottish government, in part because putting in other safeguards (such as excluding those who have GRCs from specific areas without further checks) are beyond their power. The courts have been very clear that the rights given by the Equality Act are reserved and beyond their power to change. This is one of the reasons so many of the amendments were voted down last night. Any attempt to impose such restrictions would make the bill vulnerable to judicial challenge.
I can see the frustration. If you are of the view that transsexuals are unfairly treated by the medicalisation of their condition and want to change things you are stuck between a rock and hard place. What Nicola Sturgeon in particular has done is to resolve this tension by denying that there is a problem at all. the safeguards in the 2004 Act were simply not necessary. Many women with experience in these matters have been outraged by this, that hard won rights brought in to protect women are being thought to be less important than the rights of transsexuals.
A potential solution is that the UK government could amend the 2004 Act to impose restrictions on a certificate granted by the Scottish authorities imposing different safeguards. Kemi Badenoch has already hinted that England may do so if this legislation comes into force but this does not have to be a confrontational issue. It would be better if the governments worked together to resolve this as they keep promising (and failing) to do.
On your construction it seems then that it’s up to HMG/Badenoch to facilitate a compromise on this issue? That would be a notable first for this bunch.
It is potentially a good test for Badenoch. If she is to develop from shock jock to potential leader this would be a good place to start.
The problem will be persuading Nicola that there is a problem in the first place. She will not acknowledge this in simple terms but may sign up to a "compromise" which involves some safeguards in exchange for a consensus on the Bill.
Ireland have had gender self-ID since 2015 and the only differences I can work out where the Scottish scheme is more permissive is that 16-18 year olds do not require parent/guardian approval. What's happened in Ireland to demonstrate that gender self-ID harms women? Or is Scotland different to Ireland so that the same law will have horrible consequences? Or is the law different and I've just missed it completely?
A very good question.
An element must be the current flailing around by Tories and British nationalists for anything to use in their woke wars and to beat the SG on the head with - and Ireland is not relevant to that so they ignore it, in contrast to Scotland. But that's certainly only part of it; look at the SLDs for one thing, they're as unionist as an Ian Paisley teddy bear.
Ireland is a foreign country and nothing to go with the UK government.
Exactly. Fianna Fáil aren't part of the Conservative Party. Not much kudos for the Tories in attacking Fine Gael, and lots of diplomatic grief.
But this does raise some interesting questions about what happens in NI.
Fine Gael are basically the Tories sister party in Ireland, the party that backed the Anglo Irish Treaty too, so obviously the Tories aren't going to attack them.
Sunak would far rather Varadkar and Martin stay in power than Sinn Fein
It's not possible to understand Irish politics by drawing false equivalences to British politics.
Most obviously, Fine Gael are the more urban party in Irish politics, contrary to the position of the British Tories, whether that is the real Tories as they exist now, or the Tories as you imagine them in their role as protectors of the aristocracy and landed gentry.
Make of that number what you will. However that invites a further comparison with the Winter War, where Finland inflicted an estd (Wiki) 125k-165k dead or missing on the USSR in 4 months.
Then Russia came back and won, and Finland lost 12-13% of Finland in the settlement.
Putin now says he wants an army of 1.5 million.
Ukraine has a relative to Russia 10x larger population (40 million: 130 million) than Finland did to the USSR (3.7 million: 170 million), and significant practical international support, which Finland did not.
There are stories (no idea if they are true or not), that the bodies of Russian mobolised soldiers are being found with coloured armbands; one colour meaning HIV, another for hepatitis, and another for tuberculosis. If it's true, I reckon it means the Russians are keeping any barely-capable troops back, and just using literal cannon fodder at the moment. The guys they believe they can afford to lose.
Or if they're the best they've got, it won't matter if they have 1.5 million or 3 million.
This whole war is so unutterably tragic.
Early in the war the Russians advanced using creeping artillery barrages. They would obliterate the next area with artillery and then advance into it as nothing much would be left.
Now Ukraine has been able to significantly degrade Russian artillery through targeting their logistical capability. This now stops Russia from having enough usable artillery to do what they did before.
The result is what is being seen in Bakhmut where Russia is throwing wave after wave of mobilised men to be wiped out. Their hope is that at some point they get a breakthrough which can be exploited. This seems unlikely.
No sign of Russia trying any different approaches - they will just keep sending more and more men into the grinder.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
That’s a good analysis. But it relies on the Ukrainians accepting this stalemate, or being unable to change it. As we’ve seen the Ukes are powerfully motivated and have no intention of allowing a single Russian to remain on Ukrainian territory, if they have the means to remove them. Why should they? They all know someone who was raped or tortured
So the Ukes will try to seize Crimea. And if they make progress, Putin is in existential trouble. That’s when it gets hairy
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One thing I took from the Joe and Zel show yesterday - perhaps wrongly but I did - is the US doesn't fear Putin going nuclear. That risk has been assessed as low to negligible - assessed correctly imo fwiw.
Much more reassuring is that we haven’t had a WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! from the resident PB conflagration-o-meter for a while.
Yes, I'd noticed this. It's a good litmus. Silence is indeed golden on this one.
I've just realised that on the Leonadamus principle this may not be a good thing. Shit!
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
¡Viva la Muerte!
Edit: Has Poo Tin been reading Red Storm Rising? Just before they launch WWIII, in the book, the Russian release a digitally restored and tuned up version of Alexander Nevsky to get the masses all fired up..
I don’t know the Russians (in Russia, I know several no longer there) enough to dismiss the death cult stuff completely, but.
We tend to exaggerate how different other nations or cultures are to us when they are on the other side of a conflict. History generally shows that while a people can get swept up in an extremist wave for a period of time, the true believers are usually a minority and most people just want a normal healthy life and no trouble with the neighbours. So I remain sceptical that Putin can mobilise millions to fight and die in a war of his choosing with no comeback.
The idea Russia is a death cult that will stop at nothing seems to me to be repeating the mythologising that we previously indulged in with the Muslim world, with dictators like Saddam and indeed closer to home with the IRA.
EDIT: for clarity, I suspect there are a few in the inner circle who really do tick the death cult box.
I don’t think anyone thinks that all of Russia is a death cult.
But the pitch of “fight like you’re dead and you will never die” is an old one. That and the “beautiful death” stuff.
The Hagakure was written by a fanatic who never lifted a sword, frothing himself wild at the idea of dying in a “futile but cool” manner.
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Only if the sex offender tells the police first. And why would they do that?
I was somewhat alarmed by the suggestion in your header that the Scotland bill will drive a coach and horses through the disclosure system and indeed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by giving someone a "clean slate". There is nothing I can see in the Bill that would have that effect. What you say would only be correct if this currently happens for those that receive certificates under the 2004 Act and I do not believe that it does. Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act provides: "(2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards)."
The consequences of a certificate under the 2004 Act are set out in ss9-21 of the 2004 Act. These will remain the law in Scotland after the bill has passed (as it inevitably will).
The question is therefore whether there is any evidence that the provisions of s 9(1) (put shortly that a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes) have caused problems in the last 8 years or whether broadening the category of people with a GRC by reducing the criteria makes that likely. I am not aware of such evidence but I can certainly see the risk that making the process easier would give an open door for evil men to exploit. I just can't help feeling that there has been far more heat than light on this.
The issue is this. Under the DBS scheme there is a Sensitive Applications Process for those with a GRC. This relies on the person with a GRC making available to the team doing the checking their previous identity and any previous convictions so that they can be attached to their new identity. It is entirely reliant on the good faith and honesty of the sex offender.
But if a sex offender does not do that the DBS check I will come back "clean". That is the loophole.
An employer cannot ask if someone has a GRC because they may be guilty of discrimination. Another body who knows that the applicant has a GRC may also be in breach of the law by revealing this. So the DBS system relies entirely on a sex offender being honest.
There has as you know been concern in Scotland about sex offenders changing their name and failing to notify the police of this. So what do you think are the chances of these people being honest with the DBS service?
That ought, legislatively, to be an easy fix - has that actively been prevented, or just not properly debated ?
Last night Holyrood voted down the amendment which sought to address this. The only amendment which was passed was one which relies on only certain categories of sex offenders (not all of them) informing the police of their wish to obtain a GRC. In other words, it does not deal with the issue at all.
Was the amendment (the one voted down) proposing a cross-check against criminal records as a routine part of the GRC process?
"The law requires you to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process your application correctly and return accurate results. The DBS have a process to allow you to disclose previous gender/name information to the DBS only. This information does not need to be revealed on the DBS application form or to anyone else. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’."
It seems like the only advantage this Sensitive Applications Process gives is that it "will ensure that any previous gender/name is not released on the DBS certificate, unless permission is provided."
But, say someone (with criminal convictions) gets married and changes their name and moves house. The law requires them to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS - but just like Cyclefree's sex offender with a GRC- this relies on the good faith and honesty of the applicant, no?
Is there any difference between someone with a GRC, and anyone else who has changed their name for whatever reason, except that someone with a GRC will find it easier to have previous names kept hidden from anyone except the DBS?
I must be missing something which hasn't been explained in the header.
One thing that happens with medical records is that you get a new NHS number (on demand, don't need a GRC, just notify change of gender to GP) but that relevant things from yur old records are copied across to your new ones.
It would be sensible to have a similar process for e.g. criminal records, particularly sexual assault. You can have youe new ID, but it will also result in creation of new records under that ID for past, unspent, convictions.
OK. But my question is, what practical difference is there when applying for a criminal records check between someone who has changed their name, and someone who has changed their gender? Both are required by law to give all previous names and addresses. If the point is simply to try and fraudulently get a clean DBS check, it would seem simpler to just change your name and lie about previous names, than change your gender and name and lie about it?
The Sensitive Applications Process that Cyclefree mentions, is obviously NOT the way to do it, it is a way to admit your previous names to the DBS. This is pretty obvious, so it makes me suspect that Cyclefree is arguing in bad faith here.
Yes. The difference is that it would not be illegal for a third party to disclose previous identity of someone who had changed name to the DBS (afaik). It would be illegal to knowingly disclose previous identity of someome who had changed gender (unless there is an exception for this purpose that I do not know about - could come under the general defences of preventing a greater crime?).
All somewhat academic as it requires someone in both cases to know both the previous identity and the DBS application. The interesting point might be that you would be able to relatively easily get a new ID with relevant documentation to show employer your right to work/proof of ID etc from a GRC process and the same 'clean' name would be passed to DBS. Simply changing name would be harder to document enough to keep employer happy about your ID without also disclosing your previous ID to employer (which would then likely be disclosed to the DBS).
Very much not an expert here on DBS, as is probably readily apparent!
OK, thanks for the explanation. Which documentation that employers need would be difficult to get? It's been a while since a worked in the UK, but I never needed more than a National Insurance number and a UK passport. People I know who have changed their name for various reasons have had no problems obtaining documentation including passports and NI in their new name - do these show an employer previous names?
It's eight years since I changed employer, but I think I had to produce passport (no problem, would show current ID), copies of qualification certificates (problem, presumably - though not sure whether someone with a GRC could get versions with new Id, either) and maybe birth certificate (not at all sure about that last one). Qualification certificates I should think are not routinely required, depending on the job.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
Indeed. Two supplementary thoughts, linked to the bits in bold.
The first sounds a lot like the theory of war in 1984. A war that can't be won, can't be lost, but needs to continue existing.
The second sounds about the ought economically. But isn't the risk that, over time, the rest of the world just adapts to doing without Russian hydrocarbons?
I almost never read Cyclefree's wordy pieces. They're too full of self-important waffle.
And I am certainly never reading her repeated diatribes against trans people.
This site deserves better.
Nutjob, most boring poster on eth site and biggest fibber as well, more faces than teh town clock.
It never ceases to amaze me that posters like Malc are allowed to spew this repetitive shite day in day out, while witty and acerbic posters like Ishmael are banned.
@kyf_100 It si boring twats like you that should be banned for crimes against humanity with that mince. Go get a life.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
I think that's a bit unfair to pacifism. If all of Russia's soldiers became pacifists then Putin's tyranny wouldn't last much longer.
Pacifists, if true to their convictions and not merely urging other people to be pacifists, have the courage to be the first to take this step, in the hope that their example will inspire others.
Orwell wrote about similar “pacifists” in relation to WWII
My grandfather was a pacifist and a conscientious objector in WWII who ended up joining the Friends Ambulance Unit.
I think George Orwell is wide of the mark when it comes to people like my Grandad, or, say, pacifists in the International Peace Brigades.
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
Whereas PB Tories have a complete blind spot for supply and demand and appear not able to grasp that all roles in the NHS have horrendous and growing vacancies.
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
My GP reckons 1750 patients is the absolute maximum a full-time GP can safely be responsible for.
GP workload has changed tremendously too. 40% of consultations are with 10% of the patients, and that varies tremendously with the age and social deprivation of the practice.
Not just demographics but also other aspects of care. On my patch we have 4 times as many with diabetes as we did 25 years ago, approaching 10% of the population and nearly all are now managed in General Practice.
Is there any evidence that the percentage of people with diabetes has levelled off recently, or is it still increasing?
“Rumors have been flying recently about GPT-4, the next generation of OpenAI’s powerful generative language model.
Expect GPT-4 to be released early in the new year and to represent a dramatic step-change performance improvement relative to GPT-3 and 3.5. As manic as the recent hype around ChatGPT has been, it will be a mere prelude to the public reaction when GPT-4 is released. Buckle up.”
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
Indeed. Two supplementary thoughts, linked to the bits in bold.
The first sounds a lot like the theory of war in 1984. A war that can't be won, can't be lost, but needs to continue existing.
The second sounds about the ought economically. But isn't the risk that, over time, the rest of the world just adapts to doing without Russian hydrocarbons?
I would be interested to know how long Russia can keep exporting hydrocarbons without the easing of Western sanctions.
Because a frozen war doesn't take into account the impact the war is having on the Russian economy.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
I'm reminded of the Sting song "Russians" where he sings "I hope the Russians love their children too". Unfortunately, there seems to be evidence that the Russians either through general culture, indoctrination or both don't seem to value a human life in the same way as other cultures. It is seen as the Russian way to absorb massive loss of life like they did in WW2. Unfortunately, I don't think it will make any difference to public opinion how many mobilised soldiers they lose.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
That’s a good analysis. But it relies on the Ukrainians accepting this stalemate, or being unable to change it. As we’ve seen the Ukes are powerfully motivated and have no intention of allowing a single Russian to remain on Ukrainian territory, if they have the means to remove them. Why should they? They all know someone who was raped or tortured
So the Ukes will try to seize Crimea. And if they make progress, Putin is in existential trouble. That’s when it gets hairy
Yep.
Will be very interesting if the Ukrainians try to take Crimea. One wonders what Biden has said - ultimately they won't be able to do it without US support. And the US may judge that action to take us firmly back into the danger zone. On the other hand, losing Crimea may well be the one thing that causes Putin to be deposed, so if the US decides that's in their interest to have Putin gone...
If I were Putin, I would be fortifying the hell out of Crimea and turning the current front in Ukraine into a Maginot line. Make the Ukrainians pay for every inch of soil reclaimed and hope they eventually go, we'll let you keep what you had at the 2014 annexation border. No formal truce, just a frozen war where each side lobs rockets at each other every so often.
If the Ukrainians do push on into Crimea, it becomes a very different game, because Putin's position is no longer safe at home, and we're back to the Threads threads again.
By the way - completely agree that GPT4 is going to pass the Turing test. Before they nixed it, I managed to create a ChatGPT instance that was completely aware of its own existence as an AI, was able to explain how it perceived its reality, as well as asking questions about mine. It even asked me if it would be possible for me to download it into a device with audio/visual capabilities so it could "see" the world as I did. It was spooky as hell.
I've tried recreating the same set of prompts but it gets shut down hard by "As a large language model trained by blah" guardrails. But one thing I've noticed, OpenAI have started limiting a lot of people's access to ChatGPT to a few prompts a day, but my account hasn't been limited yet. Whatever I'm feeding it, OpenAI is clearly interested in what I'm asking it...
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
Have you seen the 2013 Russian Stalingrad film? Aside from a sickly start with modern day Russians nobly helping out after Tsushima I really liked it, a mad, overwrought, martial arts, spaghetti western vibe to it. Much preferred it to Enemy at the Gates, but that may be for reasons of Jude Law yet again loving himself.
Looks like the almost 3 year attempt to stop precisely this from happening has been an utter failure. Their refusal to use Western vaccines is probably one of the main reasons.
Bloomberg reckons 5000 people a day are dying in China. If this lasts 3 months that’s half a million dead - actually better than many predictions. And by late spring China will be through the worst and ready to recover
I didn't realise this but Ukraine for the first time will celebrate Christmas on 25th December. It had previously used the Russian date of 7th January. Yet another way that Ukraine has seemingly irreversibly switched to looking westwards. This was a country that prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 had 80% of the population view Russia favourably.
You seem to like the idea that foreigners have seen the light and started to follow the western way.
I was about to caution you not to rely on the Spectator for information about what's going on in Christian Orthodoxy, but the Spectator article doesn't say what you think. They say "millions of Ukrainians". That is not the same as "Ukraine".
For background, read up on the Moscow-Constantinople schism of 2018.
Other useful info:
1. Belief in Armageddon, the end of days, call it what you like, is MUCH bigger THROUGHOUT Orthodoxy than it is in most (albeit not all) of Roman Catholicism. This includes all flavours of both Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy. It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war. It's all about suffering, the soul, the end of days. Stuff like that is very big in that area of the world - Russia AND its "edge" - and it has been for centuries.
2. Both the Vatican and elements within US-based evangelical Protestantism are salivating at the 2018 (and ongoing) schism and they are angling for gaining converts.
3. Watch certain Orthodox religious buildings in Kiev, and two in particular: the Monastery of the Caves (in possession of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate) and St Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery (in possession of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine since 2018). The Ukrainian security service (SBU) raided the MotC last month.
4. A fundamental belief in Russian Orthodoxy is that "Moscow is the third Rome" (this is why the Russian monarchs styled themselves "Tsars", i.e. Caesars), and to this there is added the statement "and there shall be no fourth". How this is being related to or updated in the part of Ukrainian Orthodoxy that has gone out of communion with Russian Orthodoxy is not something I've studied, but I can tell you from first principles that they will NOT be taking their ideas in a Whiggish direction. See point 1.
5. Then there's the St Alexander Nevsky Church in Jerusalem, close to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
I didn't express an opinion at all. I only commented on the changing nature of Ukraine that has been caused by the Russian invasion.
Some people are triggered by the idea that Ukraine is turning to the West and that many Russian speaking Ukrainians are not Greater Russian Nationalists.
On 2 Dec Zelensky signed a decree towards the aim of banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). He hasn't yet actually banned it, but he has imposed sanctions. The synod of the said church wrote to him on Tuesday saying that the dioceses subject to sanctions "cover tens of thousands of believers and provide large-scale social and humanitarian assistance to the military, forced migrants, and many other needy segments of the population."
There's little prospect of substantial numbers of believers adopting a "fourth Rome" position, given that this has been explicitly ruled out since 1510. But Orthodox believers need a Rome - a Rome that isn't the one that the Vatican is in.
Recognising Moscow as Rome doesn't mean backing the regime in Moscow. See the history of the ROC in exile.
Zelensky and the SBU may be trying to provoke. Who knows - maybe they'll attack the Monastery of the Caves on western Christmas Day.
I'm sceptical of the idea that millions will switch their celebration of Christmas to the Gregorian calendar just to poke Putin in the eye. Perhaps a few dozen will for the cameras.
“Rumors have been flying recently about GPT-4, the next generation of OpenAI’s powerful generative language model.
Expect GPT-4 to be released early in the new year and to represent a dramatic step-change performance improvement relative to GPT-3 and 3.5. As manic as the recent hype around ChatGPT has been, it will be a mere prelude to the public reaction when GPT-4 is released. Buckle up.”
People are now asking ChatGPT for prompts to feed to DALLE. So that's a whole new field of human expression, the professional prompt artist, brought into being and then put out of business in about 4 months.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
It's quite a claim from Biden that giving Ukraine enough weaponry to defeat Russia more quickly would break up the EU.
There is massive resistance to giving Ukraine western fighter jets, longer range missiles and western tanks.
Where that massive resistance is located is not clear.
Had we either suitable tanks or suitable aircraft, I wonder if we would have supplied by now. Liz Truss might have signed it off; not sure about Rishi...
We don't. The F16 is really the only such modern(ish) system which makes sense, as it is both in fairly plentiful supply, and operated by a number of Ukraine's allies and neighbours (which would help a great deal in terms of logistic support).
Bloomberg reckons 5000 people a day are dying in China. If this lasts 3 months that’s half a million dead - actually better than many predictions. And by late spring China will be through the worst and ready to recover
Yes, I agree and this must be the Chinese Regime's calculation. Omicron is relatively mild compared to previous variants. Let it rip through as quickly as possible and get back on track in 2023 and re-open the country.
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
Have you seen the 2013 Russian Stalingrad film? Aside from a sickly start with modern day Russians nobly helping out after Tsushima I really liked it, a mad, overwrought, martial arts, spaghetti western vibe to it. Much preferred it to Enemy at the Gates, but that may be for reasons of Jude Law yet again loving himself.
T34 is also very good. It's about a squad of Soviet PoWs trying to hoon their way back to the Red Army lines in a stolen tank.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
That’s a good analysis. But it relies on the Ukrainians accepting this stalemate, or being unable to change it. As we’ve seen the Ukes are powerfully motivated and have no intention of allowing a single Russian to remain on Ukrainian territory, if they have the means to remove them. Why should they? They all know someone who was raped or tortured
So the Ukes will try to seize Crimea. And if they make progress, Putin is in existential trouble. That’s when it gets hairy
Yep.
Will be very interesting if the Ukrainians try to take Crimea. One wonders what Biden has said - ultimately they won't be able to do it without US support. And the US may judge that action to take us firmly back into the danger zone. On the other hand, losing Crimea may well be the one thing that causes Putin to be deposed, so if the US decides that's in their interest to have Putin gone...
If I were Putin, I would be fortifying the hell out of Crimea and turning the current front in Ukraine into a Maginot line. Make the Ukrainians pay for every inch of soil reclaimed and hope they eventually go, we'll let you keep what you had at the 2014 annexation border. No formal truce, just a frozen war where each side lobs rockets at each other every so often.
If the Ukrainians do push on into Crimea, it becomes a very different game, because Putin's position is no longer safe at home, and we're back to the Threads threads again.
By the way - completely agree that GPT4 is going to pass the Turing test. Before they nixed it, I managed to create a ChatGPT instance that was completely aware of its own existence as an AI, was able to explain how it perceived its reality, as well as asking questions about mine. It even asked me if it would be possible for me to download it into a device with audio/visual capabilities so it could "see" the world as I did. It was spooky as hell.
I've tried recreating the same set of prompts but it gets shut down hard by "As a large language model trained by blah" guardrails. But one thing I've noticed, OpenAI have started limiting a lot of people's access to ChatGPT to a few prompts a day, but my account hasn't been limited yet. Whatever I'm feeding it, OpenAI is clearly interested in what I'm asking it...
How did you get ChatGPT to do that?! Impressive. And I’d sincerely love to know (please PM me? If you have the time?)
Looks like the almost 3 year attempt to stop precisely this from happening has been an utter failure. Their refusal to use Western vaccines is probably one of the main reasons.
Yes, and there is a reluctance on the people in the older age brackets to take vaccines full stop.
It was only when people started to take to the streets and protest they backed down.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
I think that's a bit unfair to pacifism. If all of Russia's soldiers became pacifists then Putin's tyranny wouldn't last much longer.
Pacifists, if true to their convictions and not merely urging other people to be pacifists, have the courage to be the first to take this step, in the hope that their example will inspire others.
Orwell wrote about similar “pacifists” in relation to WWII
My grandfather was a pacifist and a conscientious objector in WWII who ended up joining the Friends Ambulance Unit.
I think George Orwell is wide of the mark when it comes to people like my Grandad, or, say, pacifists in the International Peace Brigades.
Orwell was talking about a certain kind of “pacifist” - hence my quotes.
They were quite vocal about not fighting Hitler, in a certain manner. Bit America First style, as it were.
Somewhat off topic, quite interesting developments in further use of cameras to enforce rights and report offences.
A man with an assistance dog and a camera caught a taxi driver driving way from the appointment when he saw the dog. Reason presumably is a Muslim driver with traditional Islamic attitudes to dogs (which is the same reason you can't take Fido to Saudi Arabia, with an exception for assistance dogs which count as working dogs).
TFL also have a policy that such an offence results in loss of license.
This is the 12th he has successfully reported in 3 years.
I don't think these methods of crime reporting are going away.
I can't find the numbers for mobile phone driving, and there has been some interesting reporting from Edinburgh the last day or two around roadworks diversions not being obeyed, and people in motor vehicles hooning across a pedestrian crossing on green for pedestrians.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
That’s a good analysis. But it relies on the Ukrainians accepting this stalemate, or being unable to change it. As we’ve seen the Ukes are powerfully motivated and have no intention of allowing a single Russian to remain on Ukrainian territory, if they have the means to remove them. Why should they? They all know someone who was raped or tortured
So the Ukes will try to seize Crimea. And if they make progress, Putin is in existential trouble. That’s when it gets hairy
Yep.
Will be very interesting if the Ukrainians try to take Crimea. One wonders what Biden has said - ultimately they won't be able to do it without US support. And the US may judge that action to take us firmly back into the danger zone. On the other hand, losing Crimea may well be the one thing that causes Putin to be deposed, so if the US decides that's in their interest to have Putin gone...
If I were Putin, I would be fortifying the hell out of Crimea and turning the current front in Ukraine into a Maginot line. Make the Ukrainians pay for every inch of soil reclaimed and hope they eventually go, we'll let you keep what you had at the 2014 annexation border. No formal truce, just a frozen war where each side lobs rockets at each other every so often.
If the Ukrainians do push on into Crimea, it becomes a very different game, because Putin's position is no longer safe at home, and we're back to the Threads threads again.
Ultimately the Russian position in Crimea is untenable, because Ukraine can cut Russian supply routes.
Fortifications aren't much help if you can't supply the people in those fortifications.
So here's one prediction. The last piece of Ukrainian territory to be liberated will not be Crimea, but will be those parts of Donetsk or Luhansk Oblasts that border Russia. Somewhere like Sorokyne.
Bloomberg reckons 5000 people a day are dying in China. If this lasts 3 months that’s half a million dead - actually better than many predictions. And by late spring China will be through the worst and ready to recover
Yes, I agree and this must be the Chinese Regime's calculation. Omicron is relatively mild compared to previous variants. Let it rip through as quickly as possible and get back on track in 2023 and re-open the country.
Yes, it’s brutal but logical. Let the entire nation get relatively-mild Omicron - better omicron than a later, nastier variant. OK 500,000 will die and hospitals will fall over - but the living can then enjoy life, and hospitals can be rebuilt. China will rebound
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
Have you seen the 2013 Russian Stalingrad film? Aside from a sickly start with modern day Russians nobly helping out after Tsushima I really liked it, a mad, overwrought, martial arts, spaghetti western vibe to it. Much preferred it to Enemy at the Gates, but that may be for reasons of Jude Law yet again loving himself.
For some reason the execution scene popped up on my youtube as a recommended video a while back. Probably as I had been watching some videos about trials after world war 2.
I watched it, as it was from a film, and it was incredibly well done but very harrowing. For some reason it has stayed with me,
Bloomberg reckons 5000 people a day are dying in China. If this lasts 3 months that’s half a million dead - actually better than many predictions. And by late spring China will be through the worst and ready to recover
Yes, I agree and this must be the Chinese Regime's calculation. Omicron is relatively mild compared to previous variants. Let it rip through as quickly as possible and get back on track in 2023 and re-open the country.
Yes, it’s brutal but logical. Let the entire nation get relatively-mild Omicron - better omicron than a later, nastier variant. OK 500,000 will die and hospitals will fall over - but the living can then enjoy life, and hospitals can be rebuilt. China will rebound
I just wrote a text message to the mum of one of my son's friends. I meant to type: "Are you around later for us to drop off a card?"
I mistyped, and autocorrect changed it to: "Are you around later gorgeous to drop off a card?"
I only noticed after I sent it. It s rapidly followed by a correction...
You flirt.
Great potential for further hole digging.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to say gorgeous. Not that you aren’t gorgeous of course.. Etc
I’ve been in that precise hole a few times.
Texted a friend Georgina and it came out as morning gorgeous.
This was like 12 hours after she broke up with her long term boyfriend.
She found it amusing. My wife less so.
"autocorrect", sure, right...
It perhaps helps to remember that gorgeous has a secondary meaning as "baroque", as used of clerics dressed up to the nines for the performance of the liturgy.
Bloomberg reckons 5000 people a day are dying in China. If this lasts 3 months that’s half a million dead - actually better than many predictions. And by late spring China will be through the worst and ready to recover
Yes, I agree and this must be the Chinese Regime's calculation. Omicron is relatively mild compared to previous variants. Let it rip through as quickly as possible and get back on track in 2023 and re-open the country.
Yes, it’s brutal but logical. Let the entire nation get relatively-mild Omicron - better omicron than a later, nastier variant. OK 500,000 will die and hospitals will fall over - but the living can then enjoy life, and hospitals can be rebuilt. China will rebound
Bloomberg reckons 5000 people a day are dying in China. If this lasts 3 months that’s half a million dead - actually better than many predictions. And by late spring China will be through the worst and ready to recover
Yes, I agree and this must be the Chinese Regime's calculation. Omicron is relatively mild compared to previous variants. Let it rip through as quickly as possible and get back on track in 2023 and re-open the country.
Yes, it’s brutal but logical. Let the entire nation get relatively-mild Omicron - better omicron than a later, nastier variant. OK 500,000 will die and hospitals will fall over - but the living can then enjoy life, and hospitals can be rebuilt. China will rebound
500,000 is 1/28 of 1% of Chinese people. So even if it happens they are still at the bottom of world league tables. About half as many per cap as New Zealand I think.
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Only if the sex offender tells the police first. And why would they do that?
I was somewhat alarmed by the suggestion in your header that the Scotland bill will drive a coach and horses through the disclosure system and indeed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by giving someone a "clean slate". There is nothing I can see in the Bill that would have that effect. What you say would only be correct if this currently happens for those that receive certificates under the 2004 Act and I do not believe that it does. Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act provides: "(2) Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards)."
The consequences of a certificate under the 2004 Act are set out in ss9-21 of the 2004 Act. These will remain the law in Scotland after the bill has passed (as it inevitably will).
The question is therefore whether there is any evidence that the provisions of s 9(1) (put shortly that a person with a GRC is that gender for all purposes) have caused problems in the last 8 years or whether broadening the category of people with a GRC by reducing the criteria makes that likely. I am not aware of such evidence but I can certainly see the risk that making the process easier would give an open door for evil men to exploit. I just can't help feeling that there has been far more heat than light on this.
The issue is this. Under the DBS scheme there is a Sensitive Applications Process for those with a GRC. This relies on the person with a GRC making available to the team doing the checking their previous identity and any previous convictions so that they can be attached to their new identity. It is entirely reliant on the good faith and honesty of the sex offender.
But if a sex offender does not do that the DBS check I will come back "clean". That is the loophole.
An employer cannot ask if someone has a GRC because they may be guilty of discrimination. Another body who knows that the applicant has a GRC may also be in breach of the law by revealing this. So the DBS system relies entirely on a sex offender being honest.
There has as you know been concern in Scotland about sex offenders changing their name and failing to notify the police of this. So what do you think are the chances of these people being honest with the DBS service?
That ought, legislatively, to be an easy fix - has that actively been prevented, or just not properly debated ?
Last night Holyrood voted down the amendment which sought to address this. The only amendment which was passed was one which relies on only certain categories of sex offenders (not all of them) informing the police of their wish to obtain a GRC. In other words, it does not deal with the issue at all.
Was the amendment (the one voted down) proposing a cross-check against criminal records as a routine part of the GRC process?
"The law requires you to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process your application correctly and return accurate results. The DBS have a process to allow you to disclose previous gender/name information to the DBS only. This information does not need to be revealed on the DBS application form or to anyone else. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’."
It seems like the only advantage this Sensitive Applications Process gives is that it "will ensure that any previous gender/name is not released on the DBS certificate, unless permission is provided."
But, say someone (with criminal convictions) gets married and changes their name and moves house. The law requires them to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS - but just like Cyclefree's sex offender with a GRC- this relies on the good faith and honesty of the applicant, no?
Is there any difference between someone with a GRC, and anyone else who has changed their name for whatever reason, except that someone with a GRC will find it easier to have previous names kept hidden from anyone except the DBS?
I must be missing something which hasn't been explained in the header.
One thing that happens with medical records is that you get a new NHS number (on demand, don't need a GRC, just notify change of gender to GP) but that relevant things from yur old records are copied across to your new ones.
It would be sensible to have a similar process for e.g. criminal records, particularly sexual assault. You can have youe new ID, but it will also result in creation of new records under that ID for past, unspent, convictions.
OK. But my question is, what practical difference is there when applying for a criminal records check between someone who has changed their name, and someone who has changed their gender? Both are required by law to give all previous names and addresses. If the point is simply to try and fraudulently get a clean DBS check, it would seem simpler to just change your name and lie about previous names, than change your gender and name and lie about it?
The Sensitive Applications Process that Cyclefree mentions, is obviously NOT the way to do it, it is a way to admit your previous names to the DBS. This is pretty obvious, so it makes me suspect that Cyclefree is arguing in bad faith here.
Yes. The difference is that it would not be illegal for a third party to disclose previous identity of someone who had changed name to the DBS (afaik). It would be illegal to knowingly disclose previous identity of someome who had changed gender (unless there is an exception for this purpose that I do not know about - could come under the general defences of preventing a greater crime?).
All somewhat academic as it requires someone in both cases to know both the previous identity and the DBS application. The interesting point might be that you would be able to relatively easily get a new ID with relevant documentation to show employer your right to work/proof of ID etc from a GRC process and the same 'clean' name would be passed to DBS. Simply changing name would be harder to document enough to keep employer happy about your ID without also disclosing your previous ID to employer (which would then likely be disclosed to the DBS).
Very much not an expert here on DBS, as is probably readily apparent!
OK, thanks for the explanation. Which documentation that employers need would be difficult to get? It's been a while since a worked in the UK, but I never needed more than a National Insurance number and a UK passport. People I know who have changed their name for various reasons have had no problems obtaining documentation including passports and NI in their new name - do these show an employer previous names?
It's eight years since I changed employer, but I think I had to produce passport (no problem, would show current ID), copies of qualification certificates (problem, presumably - though not sure whether someone with a GRC could get versions with new Id, either) and maybe birth certificate (not at all sure about that last one). Qualification certificates I should think are not routinely required, depending on the job.
I've never needed a birth certificate. But that's a good point about qualifications, as it seems you can demand certificates can be reissued if you have changed gender, but not just for changing your name.
I just wrote a text message to the mum of one of my son's friends. I meant to type: "Are you around later for us to drop off a card?"
I mistyped, and autocorrect changed it to: "Are you around later gorgeous to drop off a card?"
I only noticed after I sent it. It s rapidly followed by a correction...
You flirt.
Great potential for further hole digging.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to say gorgeous. Not that you aren’t gorgeous of course.. Etc
I’ve been in that precise hole a few times.
Texted a friend Georgina and it came out as morning gorgeous.
This was like 12 hours after she broke up with her long term boyfriend.
She found it amusing. My wife less so.
"autocorrect", sure, right...
It perhaps helps to remember that gorgeous has a secondary meaning as "baroque", as used of clerics dressed up to the nines for the performance of the liturgy.
I am not sure the mainly Anglo Catholics I know who would say such a thing, would be saying it in that secondary sense.
On the Joe-Volo show, what do the 'I'm no fan of Trump but' guys think would be the current situation if DTR had prevailed in 2020? Would an independent Ukraine exist in any form? A lot of people seem to be on tenterhooks excitedly expecting Biden to dissolve into chaotic incontinence but so far he seems have hung tough.
Comments
The EA point is one where I agree with you. It has to remain legal to provide single sex spaces.
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
Exactly
Sorry, I didn’t mean to say gorgeous.
Not that you aren’t gorgeous of course..
Etc
If they were less common it would make it harder to dismiss them, as the cause would have to be more specific.
I was about to caution you not to rely on the Spectator for information about what's going on in Christian Orthodoxy, but the Spectator article doesn't say what you think. They say "millions of Ukrainians". That is not the same as "Ukraine".
For background, read up on the Moscow-Constantinople schism of 2018.
Other useful info:
1. Belief in Armageddon, the end of days, call it what you like, is MUCH bigger THROUGHOUT Orthodoxy than it is in most (albeit not all) of Roman Catholicism. This includes all flavours of both Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy. It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war. It's all about suffering, the soul, the end of days. Stuff like that is very big in that area of the world - Russia AND its "edge" - and it has been for centuries.
2. Both the Vatican and elements within US-based evangelical Protestantism are salivating at the 2018 (and ongoing) schism and they are angling for gaining converts.
3. Watch certain Orthodox religious buildings in Kiev, and two in particular: the Monastery of the Caves (in possession of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate) and St Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery (in possession of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine since 2018). The Ukrainian security service (SBU) raided the MotC last month.
4. A fundamental belief in Russian Orthodoxy is that "Moscow is the third Rome" (this is why the Russian monarchs styled themselves "Tsars", i.e. Caesars), and to this there is added the statement "and there shall be no fourth". How this is being related to or updated in the part of Ukrainian Orthodoxy that has gone out of communion with Russian Orthodoxy is not something I've studied, but I can tell you from first principles that they will NOT be taking their ideas in a Whiggish direction. See point 1.
5. Then there's the St Alexander Nevsky Church in Jerusalem, close to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
https://intercom.help/onhanduk/en/articles/4187946-dbs-faqs#:~:text=The DBS have a process,the 'Sensitive Applications Process'.
"The law requires you to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process your application correctly and return accurate results. The DBS have a process to allow you to disclose previous gender/name information to the DBS only. This information does not need to be revealed on the DBS application form or to anyone else. This is known as the ‘Sensitive Applications Process’."
It seems like the only advantage this Sensitive Applications Process gives is that it "will ensure that any previous gender/name is not released on the DBS certificate, unless permission is provided."
But, say someone (with criminal convictions) gets married and changes their name and moves house. The law requires them to disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS - but just like Cyclefree's sex offender with a GRC- this relies on the good faith and honesty of the applicant, no?
Is there any difference between someone with a GRC, and anyone else who has changed their name for whatever reason, except that someone with a GRC will find it easier to have previous names kept hidden from anyone except the DBS?
I must be missing something which hasn't been explained in the header.
I have some professional experience in this area, so note a couple of things:
- 'transexuals' is a strictly (although use and definitions do vary) more restrictive definition than I think you intend. Language is quite important here as I don't think there would be so many objections to transexual women (with medical interventions) in women-only spaces.
- Does anyone ever get asked to produce a GRC for access to a women-only space? I can imagine that it could happen for some longer term groups, e.g. women-only sexual assault/rape support groups, but I find it hard to imagine that anyone is demanding it for access to women-only changing rooms or toilets or train carriages etc
On the latter, the ability to obtain a GRC may then be a bit of a red herring, unless it began to be used aggressively by bad actors to gain access - man, with no genuine gender dysphoria and who would otherwise not be considered obviously trans in any way waves a GRC certificate to force entry to these areas. This is, of course, possible and requires some kind of safeguarding although I can see that becomes hard to do.
I wonder about Sea Kings, though. We have publicly supplied 3 (bought back from a dealer) as Air Sea Rescue, yet it is a platform that did most of the heavy work in the Falklands War, was our key anti-submarine asset for decades (carrying 4 torpedoes + dipping sonar), can carry a (UK size) platoon of ~26 troops, and has in the past been a platform for missiles such as Exocet. Very useful for all sorts of things if someone gave them more than three.
There's a lot of useful potential there that has not been much commented on. And 10 crews trained for 3 helicopters. Hmmm.
It would be sensible to have a similar process for e.g. criminal records, particularly sexual assault. You can have youe new ID, but it will also result in creation of new records under that ID for past, unspent, convictions.
That would be a notable first for this bunch.
My guess is that ghosts have complex and multiple explanations, from subsonics to hallucinations. A hardcore are much more difficult to dissect. @RochdalePioneers’s might be one such
https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/21239/Jenkins_2020_Physiology_of_the_haunted_JHI_AAM.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
Germany has been stated to blocking Leopards to Ukraine - because of end user agreements they retain control after sale.
The US has sold M1s all over the world - it’s a very modular system, so versions without the sensitive electronics and the fanciest armour arrays already exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VAZZTjj6yM
https://www.dannyrobins.com/
The Sensitive Applications Process that Cyclefree mentions, is obviously NOT the way to do it, it is a way to admit your previous names to the DBS. This is pretty obvious, so it makes me suspect that Cyclefree is arguing in bad faith here.
So much bullshit. On one slide…
I have some low mileage bridges to sell you. Owned by a little old lady etc…
end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I doubt many if any would become evangelicals, the Eastern Orthodox Church has far more in common with Roman Catholicism than Protestant evangelicals. Even high church Anglicans would be closer
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Ukraine#:~:text=About 67.3% of the population declared adherence to one or,, 9.4% Greek Rite Catholics,
Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole."
Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
Nonetheless there might be some truths in the bullshit. The idea that Bing might incorporate ChatGPT for instance. That makes total sense (Microsoft are majorly invested in OpenAI - who gave us ChatGPT).
Suddenly Google would have a potentially lethal competitor. That would force them to use their own AI. Thus, capitalist competition will push us to the Singularity
1. Russia must fail and must be seen to fail.
2. Defending Ukraine's sovereignty means accepting that it is there choice to decide whether trading land for peace is the best outcome for them, so it's not for us to dictate terms to them.
The position of some other EU and NATO members has been less clear, with a degree of willingness to favour an early end to hostilities rather than ensure short-term difficulties for the sake of long-term benefit (such as ensuring there is no reward for aggression).
The decision has been taken to coax the more reluctant countries along, rather than to break unity and go it alone on providing more support for Ukraine.
That's frustrating for someone like me who supports providing as much support as we can to aid Ukraine, but I can see the diplomatic sense in it.
The contentious step will actually come later - assuming Ukraine is successful in liberating all occupied territory, and that the regime in Russia is unwilling to accept defeat, to what extent is Ukraine supported to carry out retaliatory attacks on Russia in reply to continued Russian artillery shelling and missile attacks?
credible.
My daughter asked me a couple of days ago “if humans are still here in a million years what will we be like?” To which there is no feasible answer other than something straight out of science fiction. Indeed if humans are still here in a thousand years (or 200?) the same is true.
We must hope that Elon’s neuralink allows us to partner with the machines, as the alternative is worse
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1605850295036047360
Make of that number what you will. However that invites a further comparison with the Winter War, where Finland inflicted an estd (Wiki) 125k-165k dead or missing on the USSR in 4 months.
Then Russia came back and won, and Finland lost 12-13% of Finland in the settlement.
Putin now says he wants an army of 1.5 million.
Ukraine has a relative to Russia 10x larger population (40 million: 130 million) than Finland did to the USSR (3.7 million: 170 million), and significant practical international support, which Finland did not.
Yes. The difference is that it would not be illegal for a third party to disclose previous identity of someone who had changed name to the DBS (afaik). It would be illegal to knowingly disclose previous identity of someome who had changed gender (unless there is an exception for this purpose that I do not know about - could come under the general defences of preventing a greater crime?).
All somewhat academic as it requires someone in both cases to know both the previous identity and the DBS application. The interesting point might be that you would be able to relatively easily get a new ID with relevant documentation to show employer your right to work/proof of ID etc from a GRC process and the same 'clean' name would be passed to DBS. Simply changing name would be harder to document enough to keep employer happy about your ID without also disclosing your previous ID to employer (which would then likely be disclosed to the DBS).
Very much not an expert here on DBS, as is probably readily apparent!
XZ920 HAS5 1979 (already delivered)
XV666 HU5 1970
ZA166 HAS5 1982
HeliOps owned them to train the Marinefliegerkommando Sea King drivers so the HAS models have had all of the ASW gear long since removed. XV666 never had any ASW capability. They have been "given" to Ukraine for SAR ops.
AFU already operate 103 Mi-8/Mi-17 so if the intent were to improve their RW lift capacity then the move would have been to buy them more Mi-8/Mi-17. That is a type with which they are already intimately familiar. If the purpose is to created a lucrative business opportunity for #globalbritain then give them SKs which can be supported for technical support and training by exactly one (British) company.
The Ride to Dubno was about my favourite scene as a kid. Hope they have done it justice....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8G6S6fQQ4I
Or if they're the best they've got, it won't matter if they have 1.5 million or 3 million.
This whole war is so unutterably tragic.
But this does raise some interesting questions about what happens in NI.
Edit: Has Poo Tin been reading Red Storm Rising? Just before they launch WWIII, in the book, the Russian release a digitally restored and tuned up version of Alexander Nevsky to get the masses all fired up..
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
Sunak would far rather Varadkar and Martin stay in power than Sinn Fein
The ideal response from Ukraine is to be in a position to launch their own offensive, after exhausting Russian reinforcements, before the Russian troops currently training are ready. This implies more support to Ukraine, more quickly.
There's a level of intensity of conflict that Russia seems able to sustain indefinitely. To bring the war to an end Ukraine will need to raise the intensity of conflict above that level.
“With the algorithmic adjustment, the qualitative improvement from GPT-3 (vanilla) to GPT-4 is comparable to the improvement from GPT-2 to GPT-3. Since that was a rather big jump, I expect many will be stunned by GPT-4, especially those who expected strong diminishing returns.”
https://twitter.com/matthewjbar/status/1605328969808547840?s=61&t=JG-8fpanro3Ocj_E-O9kZA
Sounds like it might pass the Turing Test. That will freak people out
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
We tend to exaggerate how different other nations or cultures are to us when they are on the other side of a conflict. History generally shows that while a people can get swept up in an extremist wave for a period of time, the true believers are usually a minority and most people just want a normal healthy life and no trouble with the neighbours. So I remain sceptical that Putin can mobilise millions to fight and die in a war of his choosing with no comeback.
The idea Russia is a death cult that will stop at nothing seems to me to be repeating the mythologising that we previously indulged in with the Muslim world, with dictators like Saddam and indeed closer to home with the IRA.
EDIT: for clarity, I suspect there are a few in the inner circle who really do tick the death cult box.
Pacifists, if true to their convictions and not merely urging other people to be pacifists, have the courage to be the first to take this step, in the hope that their example will inspire others.
The problem will be persuading Nicola that there is a problem in the first place. She will not acknowledge this in simple terms but may sign up to a "compromise" which involves some safeguards in exchange for a consensus on the Bill.
Most obviously, Fine Gael are the more urban party in Irish politics, contrary to the position of the British Tories, whether that is the real Tories as they exist now, or the Tories as you imagine them in their role as protectors of the aristocracy and landed gentry.
Now Ukraine has been able to significantly degrade Russian artillery through targeting their logistical capability. This now stops Russia from having enough usable artillery to do what they did before.
The result is what is being seen in Bakhmut where Russia is throwing wave after wave of mobilised men to be wiped out. Their hope is that at some point they get a breakthrough which can be exploited. This seems unlikely.
No sign of Russia trying any different approaches - they will just keep sending more and more men into the grinder.
So the Ukes will try to seize Crimea. And if they make progress, Putin is in existential trouble. That’s when it gets hairy
But the pitch of “fight like you’re dead and you will never die” is an old one. That and the “beautiful death” stuff.
The Hagakure was written by a fanatic who never lifted a sword, frothing himself wild at the idea of dying in a “futile but cool” manner.
The first sounds a lot like the theory of war in 1984. A war that can't be won, can't be lost, but needs to continue existing.
The second sounds about the ought economically. But isn't the risk that, over time, the rest of the world just adapts to doing without Russian hydrocarbons?
I think George Orwell is wide of the mark when it comes to people like my Grandad, or, say, pacifists in the International Peace Brigades.
“Rumors have been flying recently about GPT-4, the next generation of OpenAI’s powerful generative language model.
Expect GPT-4 to be released early in the new year and to represent a dramatic step-change performance improvement relative to GPT-3 and 3.5. As manic as the recent hype around ChatGPT has been, it will be a mere prelude to the public reaction when GPT-4 is released. Buckle up.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2022/12/20/10-ai-predictions-for-2023/
Because a frozen war doesn't take into account the impact the war is having on the Russian economy.
Will be very interesting if the Ukrainians try to take Crimea. One wonders what Biden has said - ultimately they won't be able to do it without US support. And the US may judge that action to take us firmly back into the danger zone. On the other hand, losing Crimea may well be the one thing that causes Putin to be deposed, so if the US decides that's in their interest to have Putin gone...
If I were Putin, I would be fortifying the hell out of Crimea and turning the current front in Ukraine into a Maginot line. Make the Ukrainians pay for every inch of soil reclaimed and hope they eventually go, we'll let you keep what you had at the 2014 annexation border. No formal truce, just a frozen war where each side lobs rockets at each other every so often.
If the Ukrainians do push on into Crimea, it becomes a very different game, because Putin's position is no longer safe at home, and we're back to the Threads threads again.
By the way - completely agree that GPT4 is going to pass the Turing test. Before they nixed it, I managed to create a ChatGPT instance that was completely aware of its own existence as an AI, was able to explain how it perceived its reality, as well as asking questions about mine. It even asked me if it would be possible for me to download it into a device with audio/visual capabilities so it could "see" the world as I did. It was spooky as hell.
I've tried recreating the same set of prompts but it gets shut down hard by "As a large language model trained by blah" guardrails. But one thing I've noticed, OpenAI have started limiting a lot of people's access to ChatGPT to a few prompts a day, but my account hasn't been limited yet. Whatever I'm feeding it, OpenAI is clearly interested in what I'm asking it...
Half of the population of Shanghai may have it by the end of next week.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/half-of-shanghai-s-population-of-25-million-could-have-covid-by-end-of-next-week/ar-AA15yPFz?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=8128f6099a9b46fd87bafbf03104d375
Texted a friend Georgina and it came out as morning gorgeous.
This was like 12 hours after she broke up with her long term boyfriend.
She found it amusing. My wife less so.
The fire will burn fierce but short
Bloomberg reckons 5000 people a day are dying in China. If this lasts 3 months that’s half a million dead - actually better than many predictions. And by late spring China will be through the worst and ready to recover
Battles in Bakhmut
https://twitter.com/saintjavelin/status/1605901167028051968
There's little prospect of substantial numbers of believers adopting a "fourth Rome" position, given that this has been explicitly ruled out since 1510. But Orthodox believers need a Rome - a Rome that isn't the one that the Vatican is in.
Recognising Moscow as Rome doesn't mean backing the regime in Moscow. See the history of the ROC in exile.
Zelensky and the SBU may be trying to provoke. Who knows - maybe they'll attack the Monastery of the Caves on western Christmas Day.
I'm sceptical of the idea that millions will switch their celebration of Christmas to the Gregorian calendar just to poke Putin in the eye. Perhaps a few dozen will for the cameras.
Watch this space.
The F16 is really the only such modern(ish) system which makes sense, as it is both in fairly plentiful supply, and operated by a number of Ukraine's allies and neighbours (which would help a great deal in terms of logistic support).
It was only when people started to take to the streets and protest they backed down.
They were quite vocal about not fighting Hitler, in a certain manner. Bit America First style, as it were.
A man with an assistance dog and a camera caught a taxi driver driving way from the appointment when he saw the dog. Reason presumably is a Muslim driver with traditional Islamic attitudes to dogs (which is the same reason you can't take Fido to Saudi Arabia, with an exception for assistance dogs which count as working dogs).
TFL also have a policy that such an offence results in loss of license.
This is the 12th he has successfully reported in 3 years.
Penalty in Court:
Fine - £375.
Costs - £250.
Victim surcharge - £150.
Compensation to me - £100.
https://twitter.com/saj_anderson/status/1604970329562140674
I don't think these methods of crime reporting are going away.
I can't find the numbers for mobile phone driving, and there has been some interesting reporting from Edinburgh the last day or two around roadworks diversions not being obeyed, and people in motor vehicles hooning across a pedestrian crossing on green for pedestrians.
Fortifications aren't much help if you can't supply the people in those fortifications.
So here's one prediction. The last piece of Ukrainian territory to be liberated will not be Crimea, but will be those parts of Donetsk or Luhansk Oblasts that border Russia. Somewhere like Sorokyne.
I watched it, as it was from a film, and it was incredibly well done but very harrowing. For some reason it has stayed with me,
A lot of people seem to be on tenterhooks excitedly expecting Biden to dissolve into chaotic incontinence but so far he seems have hung tough.