Pavarotti? They couldn't have come up with a better name than that?
Thirteen men have appeared in court charged with more than 50 offences as part of an investigation into child sexual exploitation in Bolton.
They are accused of offences against numerous girls, aged between 14 and 17, from 2016 to 2018 in the Blackrod area of Bolton and the nearby village of Adlington.
The men, who range in age from 21 to 34, were arrested as part of Operation Pavarotti, a Greater Manchester police investigation into child sexual exploitation following numerous allegations.
The accused were brought into court in groups of three or four for brief hearings at Bolton magistrates’ court.
Yes. The tent is completely weird. Did the Sturgeons bury the money under a Fred West style patio?
Omg how can Yousless ride this out? He can’t
Forbes will be leader of a much diminished party within a year. Or they split
I remember back to last night when I thought he would last until a trouncing at the GE. The quondam days.
If this kicks off, it will take a lot of people with it. And goodbye to La Sturge's ambitions of some International relations gig, swanning about the globe.
All those excruciating Guardian op-eds about Sturgeon “having the wisdom and grace to know when to retire, unlike blah blah blah”
CHORTLE
What, like this one ?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/16/the-guardian-view-on-nicola-sturgeon-a-warning-at-the-end-of-the-road ...She is going, above all, because her independence referendum strategy – the heart of what she and her party stand for – has run out of road. Her attempt to cast the next UK election as a proxy referendum is on the verge of collapse, a testament to her wider failure to leverage the SNP’s many electoral victories into another independence vote in an attempt to reverse the failure of 2014.
More immediately, her domestic policies are also facing a concatenation of criticism. Her handling of gender recognition reform has made her unpopular. Her promises on the NHS, education, public services and roads have not been fulfilled. Her government is in trouble over costly ferry-building projects and disputes over its deposit return scheme. Her party is being investigated by police over financial transparency issues, including a £107,000 loan from her husband...
Sounds fairly balanced to me, even if it was preceded by the usual guff about the strain of politics.
Yes. The tent is completely weird. Did the Sturgeons bury the money under a Fred West style patio?
Omg how can Yousless ride this out? He can’t
Forbes will be leader of a much diminished party within a year. Or they split
There's no evidence he's directly involved (yet), but he'll be spending the next few months firefighting and on the defensive over this. If he can move on....well who knows where this ends?
You benefited from a stable society while growing up, one that provided an education and (for a while) free bed and board courtesy of Her Majesty. Roads, healthcare, rubbish collection, security, etc.
Now that you are a success don’t you have a moral obligation to pay something towards allowing others to enjoy those advantages?
(I’ve known a few people over the years who have chosen the life style you are talking about. They all end up… desiccated)
I’ve paid (literally) millions in tax to the UK Treasury. And I’ll probably pay more as and if and when I return. I’ve never even set up a PLC to legally avoid tax. Think I’ve done my share
a) It is not a PLC you set up, it is a limited company. A PLC is going somewhat unnecessarily over the top b) It is pretty much a myth that a limited company helps you save tax. You just pay different taxes and some of the same taxes in different ways. Very much swings and roundabouts. There are many reasons for setting up a company.
Technically a PLC s still a limited company. But there's a Private Limited company (LTD) and a Public Limited Company (PLC).
Yep I know exactly what a PLC is and only an idiot would set one up for a one man band operation, but we are talking @leon here who has not knowingly ever got anything right.
All those excruciating Guardian op-eds about Sturgeon “having the wisdom and grace to know when to retire, unlike blah blah blah”
CHORTLE
What, like this one ?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/16/the-guardian-view-on-nicola-sturgeon-a-warning-at-the-end-of-the-road ...She is going, above all, because her independence referendum strategy – the heart of what she and her party stand for – has run out of road. Her attempt to cast the next UK election as a proxy referendum is on the verge of collapse, a testament to her wider failure to leverage the SNP’s many electoral victories into another independence vote in an attempt to reverse the failure of 2014.
More immediately, her domestic policies are also facing a concatenation of criticism. Her handling of gender recognition reform has made her unpopular. Her promises on the NHS, education, public services and roads have not been fulfilled. Her government is in trouble over costly ferry-building projects and disputes over its deposit return scheme. Her party is being investigated by police over financial transparency issues, including a £107,000 loan from her husband...
Sounds fairly balanced to me, even if it was preceded by the usual guff about the strain of politics.
There were others much more cloying. Trust me. I gave myself hernias trying to get to the end of them
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
The full-scale invasion last February involved nearly 20 times more Russian forces than were involved in the 2014-5 fighting in the Donbas. It wasn't unreasonable for people who didn't have close knowledge of the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to expect that to lead to a rapid Ukrainian defeat
It was the uniform opinion of the Western expert commentariat that Ukraine would get stomped - that Russia would get to Kyiv and impose a government etc at will. The question was how much of the Ukrainian government would survive - in exile or fighting a guerrilla war in the west of Ukraine.
Hence the surprise when it didn't work out that way - “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
Yes. The tent is completely weird. Did the Sturgeons bury the money under a Fred West style patio?
Omg how can Yousless ride this out? He can’t
Forbes will be leader of a much diminished party within a year. Or they split
There's no evidence he's directly involved (yet), but he'll be spending the next few months firefighting and on the defensive over this. If he can move on....well who knows where this ends?
He’s her man. Entirely. He could actually have a shorter life span than Truss
I do love the gender pay gap. For people into ideology, but shit at maths. We have more female than male doctors in the NHS now. But because women are so disproportionately more dominant in the nurses area, a comparison of doctors+nurses would conclude there's a gender pay gap because the average male would be paid more (as the doctor minority of men is proportionally larger than the nurse minority of men).
Astonishing people get paid different sums for doing different jobs, men and women get paid the same for the same jobs, and somehow this is shrieked about as sexist and awful.
All those excruciating Guardian op-eds about Sturgeon “having the wisdom and grace to know when to retire, unlike blah blah blah”
CHORTLE
What, like this one ?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/16/the-guardian-view-on-nicola-sturgeon-a-warning-at-the-end-of-the-road ...She is going, above all, because her independence referendum strategy – the heart of what she and her party stand for – has run out of road. Her attempt to cast the next UK election as a proxy referendum is on the verge of collapse, a testament to her wider failure to leverage the SNP’s many electoral victories into another independence vote in an attempt to reverse the failure of 2014.
More immediately, her domestic policies are also facing a concatenation of criticism. Her handling of gender recognition reform has made her unpopular. Her promises on the NHS, education, public services and roads have not been fulfilled. Her government is in trouble over costly ferry-building projects and disputes over its deposit return scheme. Her party is being investigated by police over financial transparency issues, including a £107,000 loan from her husband...
Sounds fairly balanced to me, even if it was preceded by the usual guff about the strain of politics.
There were others much more cloying. Trust me. I gave myself hernias trying to get to the end of them
Wisconsin is one of those places that looks like it should... be heading republican too.
Really looks like Biden's election to lose now. I think he will sweep Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin again. Might even gain a cheeky North Carolina. Desantis would be a much more formidable opponent.
The Trump supporters don't want to win.
They want to blame the world and claim they've been cheated.
And nihilistic victimhood isn't attractive to swing voters.
All those excruciating Guardian op-eds about Sturgeon “having the wisdom and grace to know when to retire, unlike blah blah blah”
CHORTLE
If she resigned due to knowing this was on its way then it suggests her resignation had nothing to do with the Gender Recognition Reform Bill and it rather diminishes Sunak's role as, "saviour of the Union."
The damage to the Independence cause from Sturgeon's fall would mostly have been self-inflicted.
All those excruciating Guardian op-eds about Sturgeon “having the wisdom and grace to know when to retire, unlike blah blah blah”
CHORTLE
What, like this one ?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/16/the-guardian-view-on-nicola-sturgeon-a-warning-at-the-end-of-the-road ...She is going, above all, because her independence referendum strategy – the heart of what she and her party stand for – has run out of road. Her attempt to cast the next UK election as a proxy referendum is on the verge of collapse, a testament to her wider failure to leverage the SNP’s many electoral victories into another independence vote in an attempt to reverse the failure of 2014.
More immediately, her domestic policies are also facing a concatenation of criticism. Her handling of gender recognition reform has made her unpopular. Her promises on the NHS, education, public services and roads have not been fulfilled. Her government is in trouble over costly ferry-building projects and disputes over its deposit return scheme. Her party is being investigated by police over financial transparency issues, including a £107,000 loan from her husband...
Sounds fairly balanced to me, even if it was preceded by the usual guff about the strain of politics.
There were others much more cloying. Trust me. I gave myself hernias trying to get to the end of them
More fool you.
Yes, probably. But I quite enjoy reading guardian-style ridiculousness. It’s like a hit of caffeine. Wakes me up with angry outrage
And now that outrage is deliciously quintupled with a large dash of amused schadenfreude
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
The full-scale invasion last February involved nearly 20 times more Russian forces than were involved in the 2014-5 fighting in the Donbas. It wasn't unreasonable for people who didn't have close knowledge of the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to expect that to lead to a rapid Ukrainian defeat
It was the uniform opinion of the Western expert commentariat that Ukraine would get stomped - that Russia would get to Kyiv and impose a government etc at will. The question was how much of the Ukrainian government would survive - in exile or fighting a guerrilla war in the west of Ukraine.
Hence the surprise when it didn't work out that way - “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
I think there were a couple of dissenting voices - General Ben, perhaps.
I do love the gender pay gap. For people into ideology, but shit at maths. We have more female than male doctors in the NHS now. But because women are so disproportionately more dominant in the nurses area, a comparison of doctors+nurses would conclude there's a gender pay gap because the average male would be paid more (as the doctor minority of men is proportionally larger than the nurse minority of men).
Astonishing people get paid different sums for doing different jobs, men and women get paid the same for the same jobs, and somehow this is shrieked about as sexist and awful.
FFS please try to understand what the gender pay gap is all about. What you complain about every single time is the whole point, to show where men and women are doing different jobs, with men invariably in the better, higher-paying roles.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
The full-scale invasion last February involved nearly 20 times more Russian forces than were involved in the 2014-5 fighting in the Donbas. It wasn't unreasonable for people who didn't have close knowledge of the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to expect that to lead to a rapid Ukrainian defeat
It was the uniform opinion of the Western expert commentariat that Ukraine would get stomped - that Russia would get to Kyiv and impose a government etc at will. The question was how much of the Ukrainian government would survive - in exile or fighting a guerrilla war in the west of Ukraine.
Hence the surprise when it didn't work out that way - “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
It wasn't that big of a surprise to either the US or the UK. There were fortunately as many prepared as were unprepared.
I've posted this before, but really well worth reading in its entirely if you want to understand the lead up to the invasion. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/24/russia-ukraine-war-oral-history-00083757 For nearly a year prior, U.S. and Western officials had signs of what was coming: a suspicious buildup of Russian troops, intelligence about the Kremlin’s plans, statements from President Vladimir Putin himself. Those officials raised increasingly specific public alarms, some of which were based on a novel new strategy of rapidly declassifying and publicizing intelligence in near real-time, and made desperate attempts to avert a war, even as it became more and more clear that Putin was determined to invade...
All credit to @malcolmg who predicted exactly this for years
Trouble is it's possible to think Sturgeon's old man's a wrong'un and even that the SNP is institutionally corrupt, yet still want independence.
True, but a large part of the attraction of the SNP - and of independence - is the sense that we in Scotland are more competent and have more integrity than the cabal in Westminster.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
The full-scale invasion last February involved nearly 20 times more Russian forces than were involved in the 2014-5 fighting in the Donbas. It wasn't unreasonable for people who didn't have close knowledge of the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to expect that to lead to a rapid Ukrainian defeat
It was the uniform opinion of the Western expert commentariat that Ukraine would get stomped - that Russia would get to Kyiv and impose a government etc at will. The question was how much of the Ukrainian government would survive - in exile or fighting a guerrilla war in the west of Ukraine.
Hence the surprise when it didn't work out that way - “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
I think there were a couple of dissenting voices - General Ben, perhaps.
I don't think that even he was predicting the Russians would be stopped and pushed back to their current position.
I do love the gender pay gap. For people into ideology, but shit at maths. We have more female than male doctors in the NHS now. But because women are so disproportionately more dominant in the nurses area, a comparison of doctors+nurses would conclude there's a gender pay gap because the average male would be paid more (as the doctor minority of men is proportionally larger than the nurse minority of men).
Astonishing people get paid different sums for doing different jobs, men and women get paid the same for the same jobs, and somehow this is shrieked about as sexist and awful.
Mona Abdelatti, a pilot for Easyjet, said that part of the challenge is more men than women are interested in professions like hers.
What’s the betting angle? SNP to lose at Holyrood?
We probably need to understand just how bad it is for them first. But it ain’t looking good.
What I think is clear is that this will once again help scales fall from various eyes in terms of how the Scottish political landscape has worked over the past few years. There has been a tendency in left leaning circles to hold it up as some sort of shining city on the hill among the dark satanic mills of rUK, a progressive and popular government committed to things like EU membership and social justice and run by an impressive, competent leader.
A lot of this has been a mirage for some time. The SNP record in government isn’t that great (beyond winning elections and successfully playing the media game). The danger for them is this is just the most egregious example of people working out the Emperor has no clothes…
You benefited from a stable society while growing up, one that provided an education and (for a while) free bed and board courtesy of Her Majesty. Roads, healthcare, rubbish collection, security, etc.
Now that you are a success don’t you have a moral obligation to pay something towards allowing others to enjoy those advantages?
(I’ve known a few people over the years who have chosen the life style you are talking about. They all end up… desiccated)
I’ve paid (literally) millions in tax to the UK Treasury. And I’ll probably pay more as and if and when I return. I’ve never even set up a PLC to legally avoid tax. Think I’ve done my share
a) It is not a PLC you set up, it is a limited company. A PLC is going somewhat unnecessarily over the top b) It is pretty much a myth that a limited company helps you save tax. You just pay different taxes and some of the same taxes in different ways. Very much swings and roundabouts. There are many reasons for setting up a company.
Technically a PLC s still a limited company. But there's a Private Limited company (LTD) and a Public Limited Company (PLC).
Don't get me all excited this time in the morning. I'm supposed to be considering the carrying value of an intangible fixed asset (it's impaired - natch - it's always impaired).
Yes. The tent is completely weird. Did the Sturgeons bury the money under a Fred West style patio?
Omg how can Yousless ride this out? He can’t
Forbes will be leader of a much diminished party within a year. Or they split
Who says Forbes gets out of this in one piece?
When we all thought it was about ideological differences, Forbes was convincing as an anti-Sturgeon.
If it's about money in the party, the fan is more likely to spray the shit much more randomly.
Who knew what when?
The one certainty is that Sturgeon cannot recall if she was told about anything about SNP finances by her husband - or about anything, ever. In fact, she has no memory of ever actually marrying him...
All those excruciating Guardian op-eds about Sturgeon “having the wisdom and grace to know when to retire, unlike blah blah blah”
CHORTLE
If she resigned due to knowing this was on its way then it suggests her resignation had nothing to do with the Gender Recognition Reform Bill and it rather diminishes Sunak's role as, "saviour of the Union."
The damage to the Independence cause from Sturgeon's fall would mostly have been self-inflicted.
She might have been able to weather it without the collapse in political support over the GRR Bill.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
The full-scale invasion last February involved nearly 20 times more Russian forces than were involved in the 2014-5 fighting in the Donbas. It wasn't unreasonable for people who didn't have close knowledge of the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to expect that to lead to a rapid Ukrainian defeat
It was the uniform opinion of the Western expert commentariat that Ukraine would get stomped - that Russia would get to Kyiv and impose a government etc at will. The question was how much of the Ukrainian government would survive - in exile or fighting a guerrilla war in the west of Ukraine.
Hence the surprise when it didn't work out that way - “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
Was it? I don't remember many commentators suggesting what would happen. Niall Ferguson was an exception who confidently predicted on the day of the invasion that Russia would win inside weeks and the only question would be what sort of resistance movement would we see in Ukraine. There have been claims that the US government expected a quick victory inside days but that hasn't been confirmed.
You benefited from a stable society while growing up, one that provided an education and (for a while) free bed and board courtesy of Her Majesty. Roads, healthcare, rubbish collection, security, etc.
Now that you are a success don’t you have a moral obligation to pay something towards allowing others to enjoy those advantages?
(I’ve known a few people over the years who have chosen the life style you are talking about. They all end up… desiccated)
I’ve paid (literally) millions in tax to the UK Treasury. And I’ll probably pay more as and if and when I return. I’ve never even set up a PLC to legally avoid tax. Think I’ve done my share
a) It is not a PLC you set up, it is a limited company. A PLC is going somewhat unnecessarily over the top b) It is pretty much a myth that a limited company helps you save tax. You just pay different taxes and some of the same taxes in different ways. Very much swings and roundabouts. There are many reasons for setting up a company.
Technically a PLC s still a limited company. But there's a Private Limited company (LTD) and a Public Limited Company (PLC).
Don't get me all excited this time in the morning. I'm supposed to be considering the carrying value of an intangible fixed asset (it's impaired - natch - it's always impaired).
You benefited from a stable society while growing up, one that provided an education and (for a while) free bed and board courtesy of Her Majesty. Roads, healthcare, rubbish collection, security, etc.
Now that you are a success don’t you have a moral obligation to pay something towards allowing others to enjoy those advantages?
(I’ve known a few people over the years who have chosen the life style you are talking about. They all end up… desiccated)
I’ve paid (literally) millions in tax to the UK Treasury. And I’ll probably pay more as and if and when I return. I’ve never even set up a PLC to legally avoid tax. Think I’ve done my share
Society only stands as long as those with the broadest shoulders do their bit.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
The full-scale invasion last February involved nearly 20 times more Russian forces than were involved in the 2014-5 fighting in the Donbas. It wasn't unreasonable for people who didn't have close knowledge of the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to expect that to lead to a rapid Ukrainian defeat
Indeed, it wasn't unreasonable. And IMV the Ukrainian regime very nearly did collapse - if a few little things had gone differently, then Kyiv could have fallen. But there were signs from the Donbass fighting that all was not well with either Russian forces or their separatist stooges. The same can be said for their intervention in Syria.
It shoes, yet again, that prevailing opinion can be utterly wrong - and that acting against that opinion can lead to large benefits.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
The full-scale invasion last February involved nearly 20 times more Russian forces than were involved in the 2014-5 fighting in the Donbas. It wasn't unreasonable for people who didn't have close knowledge of the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to expect that to lead to a rapid Ukrainian defeat
It was the uniform opinion of the Western expert commentariat that Ukraine would get stomped - that Russia would get to Kyiv and impose a government etc at will. The question was how much of the Ukrainian government would survive - in exile or fighting a guerrilla war in the west of Ukraine.
Hence the surprise when it didn't work out that way - “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
Was it? I don't remember many commentators suggesting what would happen. Niall Ferguson was an exception who confidently predicted on the day of the invasion that Russia would win inside weeks and the only question would be what sort of resistance movement would we see in Ukraine. There have been claims that the US government expected a quick victory inside days but that hasn't been confirmed.
At the time, it was generally assumed that Russia would do what it liked. The general belief was that the Ukrainian military was sclerotic and that the Russian military would repeat their effectiveness from 2014.
Where there were differences were in those that thought that Russia was going to Kyiv (as indicated by the build up) and those that thought it would be a much more limited incursion.
1) Hiding what is being removed from the house, and indeed all the police activity from the press? 2) Staging area for material being removed from the house to be catalogued and boxed up before being loaded onto the vans?
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
The full-scale invasion last February involved nearly 20 times more Russian forces than were involved in the 2014-5 fighting in the Donbas. It wasn't unreasonable for people who didn't have close knowledge of the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to expect that to lead to a rapid Ukrainian defeat
It was the uniform opinion of the Western expert commentariat that Ukraine would get stomped - that Russia would get to Kyiv and impose a government etc at will. The question was how much of the Ukrainian government would survive - in exile or fighting a guerrilla war in the west of Ukraine.
Hence the surprise when it didn't work out that way - “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
Was it? I don't remember many commentators suggesting what would happen. Niall Ferguson was an exception who confidently predicted on the day of the invasion that Russia would win inside weeks and the only question would be what sort of resistance movement would we see in Ukraine. There have been claims that the US government expected a quick victory inside days but that hasn't been confirmed.
At the time, it was generally assumed that Russia would do what it liked. The general belief was that the Ukrainian military was sclerotic and that the Russian military would repeat their effectiveness from 2014.
Where there were differences were in those that thought that Russia was going to Kyiv (as indicated by the build up) and those that thought it would be a much more limited incursion.
I don't think it was so much that people thought that the Ukrainian military was sclerotic as too small, way outgunned, and that the Russians knew how to use their fancier equipment.
Therefore Russian air superiority, Ukrainian conventional forces destroyed from the air, and the country overrun. Instead we had the Russians using 1960s maps to choose targets for their precision missiles, and poorly-trained Russian units with no idea of what they were doing. The Russians were a lot more incompetent then anyone imagined, and the Ukrainians were very effective.
More likely Trump tries his previous ploy of give me the dirt on Ukraine payments to Biden and you can have F16s
Trump has been quite clear he's on the side of Russia. If Trump wins in 2024 it will almost certainly be with Russian support, as there's no reason for them to now desist from interfering in US elections, and Trump will play ball with Putin afterwards.
I don't have any time for Trump. However if he was fully on the Russian side, why did he sell Javelins to Ukraine? They along with the NLAWs were a major contributory factor in Russia's failure to take Kyiv.
Perhaps Trump thought, as the Russians did, that Russia was so stronk that a few NLAWs would not stop the massive pro-Russian uprising that would occur amongst the Ukrainians when Russia invaded.
Remember, many thought that a full-blown invasion would be an immediate win for Russia. The balance of forces would be so greatly in favour of Russia that they would just win. With hindsight, this seems to have ignored the stalemate in the Donbass since 2014.
The full-scale invasion last February involved nearly 20 times more Russian forces than were involved in the 2014-5 fighting in the Donbas. It wasn't unreasonable for people who didn't have close knowledge of the capabilities of the Ukrainian army to expect that to lead to a rapid Ukrainian defeat
It was the uniform opinion of the Western expert commentariat that Ukraine would get stomped - that Russia would get to Kyiv and impose a government etc at will. The question was how much of the Ukrainian government would survive - in exile or fighting a guerrilla war in the west of Ukraine.
Hence the surprise when it didn't work out that way - “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
Was it? I don't remember many commentators suggesting what would happen. Niall Ferguson was an exception who confidently predicted on the day of the invasion that Russia would win inside weeks and the only question would be what sort of resistance movement would we see in Ukraine. There have been claims that the US government expected a quick victory inside days but that hasn't been confirmed.
At the time, it was generally assumed that Russia would do what it liked. The general belief was that the Ukrainian military was sclerotic and that the Russian military would repeat their effectiveness from 2014.
Where there were differences were in those that thought that Russia was going to Kyiv (as indicated by the build up) and those that thought it would be a much more limited incursion.
I don't think it was so much that people thought that the Ukrainian military was sclerotic as too small, way outgunned, and that the Russians knew how to use their fancier equipment.
Therefore Russian air superiority, Ukrainian conventional forces destroyed from the air, and the country overrun. Instead we had the Russians using 1960s maps to choose targets for their precision missiles, and poorly-trained Russian units with no idea of what they were doing. The Russians were a lot more incompetent then anyone imagined, and the Ukrainians were very effective.
The lesson that people were taking from 2014 was that the Ukrainians were going by their old, soviet books. Setting up artillery positions slowly and having them hammered by Russian counter batteries - for example. Because the Russians had adapted to faster tempo warfare.
The adaptiveness and flexibility of the Ukrainians was beyond anything expected, and the Russians seemed to have gone back to Afghanistan in ineffectiveness.
Was it? I don't remember many commentators suggesting what would happen. Niall Ferguson was an exception who confidently predicted on the day of the invasion that Russia would win inside weeks and the only question would be what sort of resistance movement would we see in Ukraine. There have been claims that the US government expected a quick victory inside days but that hasn't been confirmed.
I wonder what Putin thinks his way out now is? Just keep feeding Russian youth to the meat grinder until the country collapses? Nukes? Something else?
Putin's destroyed Russia. Took a while, but he's completely wrecked his country and now can't back down as he knows he'll fall out a window the second he tried. Instead it's just a hope that the next 'offensive' will win big and he'll take Kyiv and Zelensky will flee (etc).
Was it? I don't remember many commentators suggesting what would happen. Niall Ferguson was an exception who confidently predicted on the day of the invasion that Russia would win inside weeks and the only question would be what sort of resistance movement would we see in Ukraine. There have been claims that the US government expected a quick victory inside days but that hasn't been confirmed.
I wonder what Putin thinks his way out now is? Just keep feeding Russian youth to the meat grinder until the country collapses? Nukes? Something else?
Putin's destroyed Russia. Took a while, but he's completely wrecked his country and now can't back down as he knows he'll fall out a window the second he tried. Instead it's just a hope that the next 'offensive' will win big and he'll take Kyiv and Zelensky will flee (etc).
Its a mess.
The only upside is a commitment (from the Ukrainians I know) to Ukraine as a social democracy. The thing that comes across quite strongly is that they don't want to go back to system of oligarchs. And that when peace comes, there will be lot of people with no fear of death wanting that changed continued and built upon.
Was it? I don't remember many commentators suggesting what would happen. Niall Ferguson was an exception who confidently predicted on the day of the invasion that Russia would win inside weeks and the only question would be what sort of resistance movement would we see in Ukraine. There have been claims that the US government expected a quick victory inside days but that hasn't been confirmed.
I wonder what Putin thinks his way out now is? Just keep feeding Russian youth to the meat grinder until the country collapses? Nukes? Something else?
Putin's destroyed Russia. Took a while, but he's completely wrecked his country and now can't back down as he knows he'll fall out a window the second he tried. Instead it's just a hope that the next 'offensive' will win big and he'll take Kyiv and Zelensky will flee (etc).
If the US stops sending ammunition Ukraine will be in serious trouble within a fairly short period. In the absence of major military hardware supplies from China it is Putin's only route to victory.
Suddenly this toothache isn’t as painful as it was 20 mins ago.
Thank you Police Scotland.
Coincidence that it only happened after the CC and FM resigned , given it has been on the go for almost 2 years. He visited Holyrood and allegedly never met her and then a week or so later both go.
Comments
Do either of them spend much time there?
Thank you Police Scotland.
If this kicks off, it will take a lot of people with it. And goodbye to La Sturge's ambitions of some International relations gig, swanning about the globe.
Is it an attempt to supress the other side's vote in other races ?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/16/the-guardian-view-on-nicola-sturgeon-a-warning-at-the-end-of-the-road
...She is going, above all, because her independence referendum strategy – the heart of what she and her party stand for – has run out of road. Her attempt to cast the next UK election as a proxy referendum is on the verge of collapse, a testament to her wider failure to leverage the SNP’s many electoral victories into another independence vote in an attempt to reverse the failure of 2014.
More immediately, her domestic policies are also facing a concatenation of criticism. Her handling of gender recognition reform has made her unpopular. Her promises on the NHS, education, public services and roads have not been fulfilled. Her government is in trouble over costly ferry-building projects and disputes over its deposit return scheme. Her party is being investigated by police over financial transparency issues, including a £107,000 loan from her husband...
Sounds fairly balanced to me, even if it was preceded by the usual guff about the strain of politics.
Hence the surprise when it didn't work out that way - “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
This is an absolute disaster for the Nats
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65179430
I do love the gender pay gap. For people into ideology, but shit at maths. We have more female than male doctors in the NHS now. But because women are so disproportionately more dominant in the nurses area, a comparison of doctors+nurses would conclude there's a gender pay gap because the average male would be paid more (as the doctor minority of men is proportionally larger than the nurse minority of men).
Astonishing people get paid different sums for doing different jobs, men and women get paid the same for the same jobs, and somehow this is shrieked about as sexist and awful.
They want to blame the world and claim they've been cheated.
And nihilistic victimhood isn't attractive to swing voters.
The damage to the Independence cause from Sturgeon's fall would mostly have been self-inflicted.
And now that outrage is deliciously quintupled with a large dash of amused schadenfreude
https://twitter.com/abtliddle/status/1643538107281686530?s=46
I've posted this before, but really well worth reading in its entirely if you want to understand the lead up to the invasion.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/24/russia-ukraine-war-oral-history-00083757
For nearly a year prior, U.S. and Western officials had signs of what was coming: a suspicious buildup of Russian troops, intelligence about the Kremlin’s plans, statements from President Vladimir Putin himself. Those officials raised increasingly specific public alarms, some of which were based on a novel new strategy of rapidly declassifying and publicizing intelligence in near real-time, and made desperate attempts to avert a war, even as it became more and more clear that Putin was determined to invade...
That edifice is starting to crumble somewhat.
Hubris.
Well, exactly.
When we all thought it was about ideological differences, Forbes was convincing as an anti-Sturgeon.
If it's about money in the party, the fan is more likely to spray the shit much more randomly.
Who knew what when?
Officers are also carrying out searches at a number of addresses as part of the investigation.
What I think is clear is that this will once again help scales fall from various eyes in terms of how the Scottish political landscape has worked over the past few years. There has been a tendency in left leaning circles to hold it up as some sort of shining city on the hill among the dark satanic mills of rUK, a progressive and popular government committed to things like EU membership and social justice and run by an impressive, competent leader.
A lot of this has been a mirage for some time. The SNP record in government isn’t that great (beyond winning elections and successfully playing the media game). The danger for them is this is just the most egregious example of people working out the Emperor has no clothes…
They're probably both additive, not either or.
Does someone literally know where the bodies are buried?
And cuffed
A party imploding like this? With police tents in front of the house of the just-departed leader?
https://twitter.com/Dennynews/status/1643540485460353024?s=20
There is no “enough”
It shoes, yet again, that prevailing opinion can be utterly wrong - and that acting against that opinion can lead to large benefits.
And has a tent erected on its lawn.
Not sure of the details, but I think it had financial impropriety beat.
Where there were differences were in those that thought that Russia was going to Kyiv (as indicated by the build up) and those that thought it would be a much more limited incursion.
https://twitter.com/scotpol1314/status/1643538379642904577?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
2) Staging area for material being removed from the house to be catalogued and boxed up before being loaded onto the vans?
Therefore Russian air superiority, Ukrainian conventional forces destroyed from the air, and the country overrun. Instead we had the Russians using 1960s maps to choose targets for their precision missiles, and poorly-trained Russian units with no idea of what they were doing. The Russians were a lot more incompetent then anyone imagined, and the Ukrainians were very effective.
The adaptiveness and flexibility of the Ukrainians was beyond anything expected, and the Russians seemed to have gone back to Afghanistan in ineffectiveness.
Just keep feeding Russian youth to the meat grinder until the country collapses?
Nukes?
Something else?
Putin's destroyed Russia. Took a while, but he's completely wrecked his country and now can't back down as he knows he'll fall out a window the second he tried. Instead it's just a hope that the next 'offensive' will win big and he'll take Kyiv and Zelensky will flee (etc).
The only upside is a commitment (from the Ukrainians I know) to Ukraine as a social democracy. The thing that comes across quite strongly is that they don't want to go back to system of oligarchs. And that when peace comes, there will be lot of people with no fear of death wanting that changed continued and built upon.
Shame we didn't have Jarvis Cocker to walk on stage and waft the smell away this time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-65186368