I am a trusting sort when it comes to government. It's one reason I don't like inquiries since media and public will usually want them to be about pinning blame on the government of the day and excoriating them for considering options or delays or choices, which in the moment may have been reasonable even if they later turn out to be the wrong choices. I think mistakes made in the moment can be forgiven, if processes were followed appropriately a decision I don't like must be borne, and accept I do not have access to the big picture or even fine details, and so generally accept ministerial and departmental explanations.
But if the government genuinely wants the public, and itself, to understand a situation and learn lessons, then the people inquiring need independence to ask questions and seek information. If they can only look at what the government allows them to look at, then as was noted about 7 pages back the government could and should just do the inquiry internally - no risk there.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Thank goodness for the urban dictionary.
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
I have a feeling that you would think differently if it were the USA making nuclear threats against Britain. I can't see you wanting to give in to that kind of bullying somehow.
Your feeling is damn wrong. If the US was threatening to nuke us, you'd best believe I'd be making no sudden moves, and giving them everything they wanted with a big smile.
I will remind you of this the next time you suggest that we should act against their interests.
I am not stupid. I am fully aware that the military power of the US exceeds our own by orders of magnitude, and that they are deeply embedded within all our defence and intelligence systems. But they still require our co-operation, and, like France, Germany, or even Sweden, or Ireland, we could sell our support much more dearly and emphasise our sovereignty much more assertively than we currently choose to do.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Thank goodness for the urban dictionary.
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
I have a feeling that you would think differently if it were the USA making nuclear threats against Britain. I can't see you wanting to give in to that kind of bullying somehow.
Your feeling is damn wrong. If the US was threatening to nuke us, you'd best believe I'd be making no sudden moves, and giving them everything they wanted with a big smile.
I will remind you of this the next time you suggest that we should act against their interests.
I am not stupid. I am fully aware that the military power of the US exceeds our own by orders of magnitude, and that they are deeply embedded within all our defence and intelligence systems. But they still require our co-operation, and, like France, Germany, or even Sweden, or Ireland, we could sell our support much more dearly and emphasise our sovereignty much more assertively than we currently choose to do.
We probably could, but we would probably be advised to bear the burden of collective defence more powerfully than we presently do if we were going to do so. So should the others - I think it's one area where many otherwise not inclined to like a word he said had some sympathy with Trump about Europe not pulling its weight. Biden has historically moaned about it too.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Thank goodness for the urban dictionary.
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
I have a feeling that you would think differently if it were the USA making nuclear threats against Britain. I can't see you wanting to give in to that kind of bullying somehow.
Your feeling is damn wrong. If the US was threatening to nuke us, you'd best believe I'd be making no sudden moves, and giving them everything they wanted with a big smile.
I will remind you of this the next time you suggest that we should act against their interests.
I am not stupid. I am fully aware that the military power of the US exceeds our own by orders of magnitude, and that they are deeply embedded within all our defence and intelligence systems. But they still require our co-operation, and, like France, Germany, or even Sweden, or Ireland, we could sell our support much more dearly and emphasise our sovereignty much more assertively than we currently choose to do.
We probably could, but we would probably be advised to bear the burden of collective defence more powerfully than we presently do if we were going to do so. So should the others - I think it's one area where many otherwise not inclined to like a word he said had some sympathy with Trump about Europe not pulling its weight. Biden has historically moaned about it too.
Both of them were moaning because they want us to spend more on their weapons. If we spent it all on British-made armaments they'd be apoplectic.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Thank goodness for the urban dictionary.
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
I have a feeling that you would think differently if it were the USA making nuclear threats against Britain. I can't see you wanting to give in to that kind of bullying somehow.
Your feeling is damn wrong. If the US was threatening to nuke us, you'd best believe I'd be making no sudden moves, and giving them everything they wanted with a big smile.
I will remind you of this the next time you suggest that we should act against their interests.
I am not stupid. I am fully aware that the military power of the US exceeds our own by orders of magnitude, and that they are deeply embedded within all our defence and intelligence systems. But they still require our co-operation, and, like France, Germany, or even Sweden, or Ireland, we could sell our support much more dearly and emphasise our sovereignty much more assertively than we currently choose to do.
We probably could, but we would probably be advised to bear the burden of collective defence more powerfully than we presently do if we were going to do so. So should the others - I think it's one area where many otherwise not inclined to like a word he said had some sympathy with Trump about Europe not pulling its weight. Biden has historically moaned about it too.
Both of them were moaning because they want us to spend more on their weapons. If we spent it all on British-made armaments they'd be apoplectic.
They'd only have to say the magic words to you and you'd smile and sign the purchase agreement.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
Stupid ideas? This is a pandemic which is set to massacre people in their millions. Is already doing heinous things in Italy. And Bonzo wanted to be injected with it live on telly to show everyone it wasn't that big a deal?
Lets keep going with the scenario. "Erm look I've just been given Covid. Crumbs! But that means you don't need to worry, so ignore all these foreign johnnies locking down and keep going to work and visiting Peppa Pig World"
That isn't stupid. Its psychotic.
Sure. But you don’t want people holding back because they are worried about what a future inquiry will say
That cannot be avoided. You never know what might be the subject of a future inquiry and what might be relevant to that inquiry. If people hold back on that basis then its once again an argument against any inquiries at all.
I would work on the equivalent basis of legal privilege for government communications. That can be broken in very specific cases.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Codswallop.
Codswallop does not an argument win.
What we ought to remember is how good the intelligence proved to be pre-invasion. I suspect we have a fairly good idea what the considerations taking place in the Kremlin are.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Thank goodness for the urban dictionary.
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
I have a feeling that you would think differently if it were the USA making nuclear threats against Britain. I can't see you wanting to give in to that kind of bullying somehow.
Your feeling is damn wrong. If the US was threatening to nuke us, you'd best believe I'd be making no sudden moves, and giving them everything they wanted with a big smile.
I will remind you of this the next time you suggest that we should act against their interests.
I am not stupid. I am fully aware that the military power of the US exceeds our own by orders of magnitude, and that they are deeply embedded within all our defence and intelligence systems. But they still require our co-operation, and, like France, Germany, or even Sweden, or Ireland, we could sell our support much more dearly and emphasise our sovereignty much more assertively than we currently choose to do.
We probably could, but we would probably be advised to bear the burden of collective defence more powerfully than we presently do if we were going to do so. So should the others - I think it's one area where many otherwise not inclined to like a word he said had some sympathy with Trump about Europe not pulling its weight. Biden has historically moaned about it too.
Both of them were moaning because they want us to spend more on their weapons. If we spent it all on British-made armaments they'd be apoplectic.
They'd only have to say the magic words to you and you'd smile and sign the purchase agreement.
There are degrees of threat, and degrees of negotiation. If the US was aiming nukes at the UK, I'd sign. It is somewhat more likely that the US wouldn't see this as a nuking matter, therefore I wouldn't.
I tend to think a good relationship is based on respect. I don't think our current hands around ankles stance vis a vis the US is earning us any respect, or making us particularly valued as an ally.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
I think they’re more likely to spectacularly fuck up if they’re terrified to communicate.
You end up with Theresa May-type characters proliferating.
On the contrary, I think 'act like this is going to be read by the public' is a good way to run Government. We need high standards in public life.
It's a good baseline to work from. Of course we know politicians and governments seek ways around disclosing things, but that doesn't undermine the principal.
Besides, it's not generally suggested any private communications should be immediately and always accessible as a matter of course. Even public communications might be accessible but that doesn't mean automatic immediate release.
But if you are undertaking inquiries the inquiry has to see what went on and what was said, and if you have intermingled communications it is absurd to suggest the inquiry must simply accept a ruling that X is relevant and Y is not. The inquiry at least has to make that call, otherwise they are not inquiring, they are just looking at pre-approved information which may well direct them to a certain direction, intentionally or otherwise.
Actually many governments are arguing that private conversations should be available
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Possibly true but not supported by very much evidence. The only live case study suggests that nukez meanz VJ Day. Analogies with standing up to playground bullies are just analogies.
It's supported by the entire history of the Cold War.
Also by thousands of game theory and psychology experiments.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Codswallop.
Just as a matter of interest, in your personal life, do you think that saying "yes sir, of course" to bullies and blackmailers decreases your chance of being bullied and blackmailed in the future?
I think it stops the blackmailer releasing their compromat in the immediate term, which is the purpose of paying the blackmailer. And if you have equal compromat on that person, that's fine and dandy.
The doctrine of MAD is really quite simple. Saying we shouldn't care because 'half of them won't go off' is certifiable.
Caving because you are scared of nuclear war emboldens whoever threatened nuclear war.
I don't think this is a difficult point.
Your argument is that "well we *could* stand up to the bully in the future if we wanted to". But now we've said "but we don't really want to". And that message would be heard loud and clear. It would ensure, for example, that China would threaten to use nukes if its invasion of Taiwan was opposed.
Standing up makes us safer. Not just slightly safer, but massively so.
Fine, but my personal experience of bullying has been 1. school bullies who were undoubtedly capable of beating the shit out of me if I told them to fuck off, and 2. workplace bullies who were unquestionably in a position to get me fired. I am pretty confident that that is the usual dynamic of bullying, and the ones who turn out to be utter cowards when confronted are the minority.
1) when embarrassing info is leaked from the private material being assessed by this enquiry, one group of people will say it is in the public interest and noble. The other will decry it.
2) when embarrassing info is leaked from the private material being assessed by the enquiry into the actions of the Starmer government re the Venezuelan Incident, one group of people will say it is in the public interest and noble. The other will decry it.
There's a certain irony in a government, which wants to limit the scope of judicial review, seeking to use judicial review to stymie the powers it previously decided to give to a statutory enquiry.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Possibly true but not supported by very much evidence. The only live case study suggests that nukez meanz VJ Day. Analogies with standing up to playground bullies are just analogies.
It's supported by the entire history of the Cold War.
Also by thousands of game theory and psychology experiments.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Possibly true but not supported by very much evidence. The only live case study suggests that nukez meanz VJ Day. Analogies with standing up to playground bullies are just analogies.
It's supported by the entire history of the Cold War.
Also by thousands of game theory and psychology experiments.
To be fair, he's quite correct is arguing that we should take the thread of nuclear war rather more seriously than some here are arguing. But quite wrong when arguing that we should therefore succumb to nuclear blackmail.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Codswallop.
Codswallop does not an argument win.
What we ought to remember is how good the intelligence proved to be pre-invasion. I suspect we have a fairly good idea what the considerations taking place in the Kremlin are.
Giving into nuclear blackmail is proven to increase the probability of nuclear war. See the long history of Game Theory and its application to nuclear war.
Running round screaming that you’ll play Madman’s Checkers at the drop of a hat is very 1950s.
It's one reason Putin hasn't crossed the line on this (and because he's been told in no uncertain terms that China would pull the economic rug, and the US would launch a massive conventional retaliation and destroy his forces).
Nobody in the US or NATO has ever said this. Quite sensibly, because a massive conventional attack by NATO on RF forces is WW3.
"Serious Consequences" is as far as Stoltenberg has gone. The Ukrainian Death Cult on here might like to imagine that VVP has been "told in no uncertain terms" what will happen but we simply don't know.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
Are you implying that Internet scrandies may not be fully read in to the latest intelligence on the readiness status of the Russian Strategic Missile Force?
Thank goodness for the urban dictionary.
My point is that however much is or isn't ready, betting the future of human life on earth on some glib assumptions about 'crappy Soviet kit' is nuclear grade stupid.
I have a feeling that you would think differently if it were the USA making nuclear threats against Britain. I can't see you wanting to give in to that kind of bullying somehow.
Your feeling is damn wrong. If the US was threatening to nuke us, you'd best believe I'd be making no sudden moves, and giving them everything they wanted with a big smile.
I will remind you of this the next time you suggest that we should act against their interests.
I am not stupid. I am fully aware that the military power of the US exceeds our own by orders of magnitude, and that they are deeply embedded within all our defence and intelligence systems. But they still require our co-operation, and, like France, Germany, or even Sweden, or Ireland, we could sell our support much more dearly and emphasise our sovereignty much more assertively than we currently choose to do.
We probably could, but we would probably be advised to bear the burden of collective defence more powerfully than we presently do if we were going to do so. So should the others - I think it's one area where many otherwise not inclined to like a word he said had some sympathy with Trump about Europe not pulling its weight. Biden has historically moaned about it too.
Both of them were moaning because they want us to spend more on their weapons. If we spent it all on British-made armaments they'd be apoplectic.
They'd only have to say the magic words to you and you'd smile and sign the purchase agreement.
There are degrees of threat, and degrees of negotiation. If the US was aiming nukes at the UK, I'd sign. It is somewhat more likely that the US wouldn't see this as a nuking matter, therefore I wouldn't.
I tend to think a good relationship is based on respect. I don't think our current hands around ankles stance vis a vis the US is earning us any respect, or making us particularly valued as an ally.
It’s notable that the American policy has been less to strongarm their allies with nukes, than to lend them nukes.
Hilariously, the US, fairly recently, told the Germans that “no, you can’t *stop borrowing our nukes*. You signed a treaty and everything.”
It's one reason Putin hasn't crossed the line on this (and because he's been told in no uncertain terms that China would pull the economic rug, and the US would launch a massive conventional retaliation and destroy his forces).
Nobody in the US or NATO has ever said this. Quite sensibly, because a massive conventional attack by NATO on RF forces is WW3.
"Serious Consequences" is as far as Stoltenberg has gone. The Ukrainian Death Cult on here might like to imagine that VVP has been "told in no uncertain terms" what will happen but we simply don't know.
Is "WW3" really the appropriate description for a country with its conventional forces in tatters engaging in nuclear blackmail?
I was going to ask why in that case the word "war" isn't serious enough already? A world war implies something a bit more epochal and all-consuming.
I didn't want to get into the discussion and I had other things to do. Lacking the ability to respond meaningfully, and feeling that my comment was too flippant, I deleted my comment.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Cock waving nuclear bravado is quite simply one of the stupidest PB postures I've seen from some usually sensible posters.
What you have repeatedly failed to understand is that caving to nuclear blackmail makes nuclear apocalypse more, rather than less, likely.
Possibly true but not supported by very much evidence. The only live case study suggests that nukez meanz VJ Day. Analogies with standing up to playground bullies are just analogies.
It's supported by the entire history of the Cold War.
Also by thousands of game theory and psychology experiments.
Oh, well as long as it's supported by game theory and psychological experiments, I take it all back, let's throw caution to the mushroom cloud.
Isn't it simple? If the bad guys, like Putin, have nuclear weapons, and we don't, the bad guys are in a good position to win any war that might break out.
I was going to ask why in that case the word "war" isn't serious enough already? A world war implies something a bit more epochal and all-consuming.
I didn't want to get into the discussion and I had other things to do. Lacking the ability to respond meaningfully, and feeling that my comment was too flippant, I deleted my comment.
No comment on Global Thermonuclear War is too flippant. Megadeaths is always like, LOLs, dude.
It's one reason Putin hasn't crossed the line on this (and because he's been told in no uncertain terms that China would pull the economic rug, and the US would launch a massive conventional retaliation and destroy his forces).
Nobody in the US or NATO has ever said this. Quite sensibly, because a massive conventional attack by NATO on RF forces is WW3.
"Serious Consequences" is as far as Stoltenberg has gone. The Ukrainian Death Cult on here might like to imagine that VVP has been "told in no uncertain terms" what will happen but we simply don't know.
The Boeing Starliner capsule was found to have unstanctioned tape wrapping wiring bundles. Testing showed the tape was inflammable.
Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger B. Chaffee were unavailable for comment.
Maybe they thought "Inflammable" meant that it wasn't flammable.
I think you are about the 1037th person to raise that joke.
This is a failure by Boeing that moves into the hard to comprehend section.
Since January 27, 1967, anything vaguely, theoretically, flammable isn't supposed to got near a manned US space vehicle without a review trail a mile long and a mile wide.
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
The reference to disciplinary matters in the list of reasons why certain material should not be handed over is interesting. Would we see, for example, records of people being warned that social gatherings at work involving the consumption of alcohol was illegal? Given Sunak was also given a fixed penalty for such attendance that would go in the embarrassing pile.
One possible side benefit of this farce is that politicians’ enthusiasm for judge led inquiries might at last abate. That would be of considerable benefit both financially and ecologically in that far fewer massive tombs that no one ever reads, let alone acts upon (see @Cyclefree passim) would be produced.
Do any PBers live in Spain? I'd be interested to hear their views on the Spanish general election.
Not me, but FWIW I think Sanchez will be very lucky to stay in power - these "final roll of the dice" dramas tend not to change the underlying balance of power. There may be a strengthening of cohesion between the rival left-wing parties (Sumar and Podemos have started talks), which can be helpful in avoiding qjuirks in the d'Hondt system failing to deliver the intended proportional representation, but basically Spain seems to be leaning right at the moment.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Potentially more than that. And they all need not just to be read, but also considered for relevance., and cross-referenced with other information to look for inconsistencies.
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
We don't know who has leaked information allegedly from the inquiry nor whether what has been leaked is accurate or complete. The 150 questions were sent to Boris Johnson. So any leak could have come from:-
1. The inquiry. 2. Boris Johnson 3. His lawyers 4. Someone close to Boris 5. Anyone else with whom Boris or anyone of 3 and 4 shared the information.
I suspect you can discount all but 2, 3, 4 and/ or 5.
There's a certain irony in a government, which wants to limit the scope of judicial review, seeking to use judicial review to stymie the powers it previously decided to give to a statutory enquiry.
What prompted you to neuter the powers of the UK covid enquiry Mr Sunak? Do you remember the moment and circumstance you made this decision? Were you in fact going through your WhatsApp messages with Boris, when you decided this action must be taken?
The first 2 polls since the election was called are very bad for Sanchez. He has relatively little time to change things and the PP at the least look very likely to get the highest number seats although short of an absolute majority by around 35 seats. The more right wing Vox grouping could well be kingmakers.
Having said that. The Feathers at Hedley on the Hill, Northumberland takes some beating. Views to Scotland. Fine dining with entirely locally sourced ingredients. Craft ales and a small, but excellent wine list. Catering for all budgets. Excuse is that it is far too small a Hamlet to have both a pub and a restaurant. It also has regulars who can handle themselves. And sheep.
Sounds like my kind of place. 👩🏻🌾
I could link to the pub I used to work in, but it will likely doxx the village and doxx me, I think I have already admitted I was not of age to serve and drink in there. But I looked well old enough, that’s all that matters right?
So, we are to deduce that in May 2021, about the time that he announced there would be a statutory independent public inquiry into the handling of Covid, Boris Johnson, changed his phone, failed to transfer his WhatsApp data, didn't have a back-up. Very convenient.
But every WhatsApp message has at least two parties, so how confident is Johnson that his dodgy WhatsApps won't start leaking out one be one?
Boris has the phone. Had to change to a new one when security told him not to switch old one on again as possibly compromised.
But after the cabinet offices dig at him today, Boris explained this evening he is more than happy to hand if over to the security guys too so all the what’s app can safely be recovered from that one as well.
Comments
But if the government genuinely wants the public, and itself, to understand a situation and learn lessons, then the people inquiring need independence to ask questions and seek information. If they can only look at what the government allows them to look at, then as was noted about 7 pages back the government could and should just do the inquiry internally - no risk there.
What we ought to remember is how good the intelligence proved to be pre-invasion. I suspect we have a fairly good idea what the considerations taking place in the Kremlin are.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1664307466115465226
"Stats for Lefties 🏳️⚧️
@LeftieStats
🚨 NEW: Labour lead drops to 13pts (-3)
🔴 LAB 44% (-2)
🔵 CON 31% (+1)
🟠 LD 9% (-)
🟣 REF 5% (-)
🟡 SNP 3% (-)
🟢 GRN 3% (-)
Labour majority of 70 seats.
Via
@Savanta_UK
, 26-28 May (+/- vs 19-21 May)"
How about the Windsor Castle in Notting Hill?
I tend to think a good relationship is based on respect. I don't think our current hands around ankles stance vis a vis the US is earning us any respect, or making us particularly valued as an ally.
But it's contradicted by @Luckyguy1983.
So, really it's a toss up.
1) when embarrassing info is leaked from the private material being assessed by this enquiry, one group of people will say it is in the public interest and noble. The other will decry it.
2) when embarrassing info is leaked from the private material being assessed by the enquiry into the actions of the Starmer government re the Venezuelan Incident, one group of people will say it is in the public interest and noble. The other will decry it.
Strangely, the membership of these groups…
Next time there will be a request for records. And nothing to find
But quite wrong when arguing that we should therefore succumb to nuclear blackmail.
Running round screaming that you’ll play Madman’s Checkers at the drop of a hat is very 1950s.
"Serious Consequences" is as far as Stoltenberg has gone. The Ukrainian Death Cult on here might like to imagine that VVP has been "told in no uncertain terms" what will happen but we simply don't know.
Hilariously, the US, fairly recently, told the Germans that “no, you can’t *stop borrowing our nukes*. You signed a treaty and everything.”
The Boeing Starliner capsule was found to have unstanctioned tape wrapping wiring bundles. Testing showed the tape was inflammable.
Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger B. Chaffee were unavailable for comment.
This is a failure by Boeing that moves into the hard to comprehend section.
Since January 27, 1967, anything vaguely, theoretically, flammable isn't supposed to got near a manned US space vehicle without a review trail a mile long and a mile wide.
No wonder it took Covid in it's stride. It did the same with the Black Death....
One possible side benefit of this farce is that politicians’ enthusiasm for judge led inquiries might at last abate. That would be of considerable benefit both financially and ecologically in that far fewer massive tombs that no one ever reads, let alone acts upon (see @Cyclefree passim) would be produced.
Decision follows poor performance in Sunday’s regional and municipal elections"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/30/spains-centre-right-citizens-party-says-it-will-not-run-in-general-election
I could link to the pub I used to work in, but it will likely doxx the village and doxx me, I think I have already admitted I was not of age to serve and drink in there. But I looked well old enough, that’s all that matters right?
But after the cabinet offices dig at him today, Boris explained this evening he is more than happy to hand if over to the security guys too so all the what’s app can safely be recovered from that one as well.
Bricking it yet Rishi? Boris sure ain’t.