Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The overnight news that has made me most angry – politicalbetting.com

124»

Comments

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    OGH's anger worries me, considering this little bit of history: "The Straw Hat Riot of 1922 was a riot that occurred in New York City at the end of the summer as a result of unwritten rules in men's fashions at the time, and a tradition of taunting people who had failed to stop wearing straw hats after autumn began. Originating as a series of minor riots, it spread due to men wearing straw hats past the unofficial date that was deemed socially acceptable, September 15. It lasted eight days, leading to many arrests and some injuries."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Hat_Riot

    Hope reactions don't go that far against those skirts. Especially since removing skirts would cause more problems than removing hats.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_Suit_Riots
    That's nothing. The Highlanders had their kilt (both the small and great feile) banned after 1746, on the mainland anyway. The inn just opposite the mainland on the Isle of Seil is still called House of Trousers because everyone had to change there ...
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,871
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Re: bombing

    In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.

    The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.

    So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.

    I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.

    But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.

    After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
    It was also causing mass dislocations of German people - refugees fleeing cities, trains full of homeless families, the injured clogging up hospitals, denial of workers for German factories

    Of COURSE it had a major impact

    I suspect that if the RAF hadn’t brilliantly fought off the Luftwaffe in 1940, then Germany could have eventually bombed us into surrender, without ever needing to invade. There’s only so much Blitz Spirit you can distill for the suffering natives
    I don't think it was ever possible for the Germans to establish air supremacy over the UK, or over the Channel.

    In 1940, the UK produced 10,000 aircraft, to 8,600 for Germany.
    I believe they could have done. But only if Hitler had held off invading the USSR

    If he’d done that he would have had the entire industrial productive capacity and manpower of Nazi Europe - from Brest to Budapest, Denmark to Dalmatia - dedicated and available to provide and speed his war machine. He could have outproduced us in every way - eventually overwhelming the RAF - however brave - and after 6 months of limitless carpet bombing we would have surrendered. Is my guess

    Luckily for us he was so intent on destroying communism and killing all the Jews in Russia he went east
    This runs counter to any accepted view of Nazi Germany and how it operated. Germany only really tried to mobilize for total war when the war was already lost. The idea that Hitler would actually plan an economy is for the birds - the Germans spent years making over complicated, beautiful weapons of war (the Tigers I and II, the Me109 and Focke Wolfe) but simply never grasped the idea of mass production. Hence the UK, USA and USSR were able to overwhelm them with often technically less able, but vastly more numerous weapons. The ability for replace lost tanks, for instance, was hugely significant in Normandy. The allies could sustain huge losses or armour, often with the bulk of the men surviving, and overnight bring forward the replacement tanks. Once German tanks were gone, that was it, most often.

    Its a bit like Stephen Fry's counterfactual where Hitler is killed but a more ruthless leader emerges who uses the Jews and then sterilizes them. Or like the wargamers who show how Germany could have won in Russia if everything went right for the Germans and wrong for the Russians.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,754
    edited September 2023

    Any comments on this...?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508

    What would we have done if they had shot it down? 30 crew.

    I do wonder about the missile missing though. You don't have planes packed with electronics without budgeting for some interesting countermeasures.

    If it had actually been shot down, could have been the ‘oh sh!t’ moment that saw a massive escalation in direct NATO involvement in this war, at least from the air.

    One has to LOL at them being unable to hit such a large and slow-moving target. It was nearly as big as that Malaysian plane they took out at 37,000’ from the ground a few years ago. Yes, the Rivet Joint does have a slew of countermeasures, sadly somewhat more than a civvy 777.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,871

    Sean_F said:

    Re: bombing

    In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.

    The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.

    So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.

    I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.

    But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.

    After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
    Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.

    The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
    John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid. He's the expert so I defer to him, but I wonder how much of the economic factors he considered, and the the impacts of Pointblank etc on Normandy. It seems to me that while the cost was huge, the effects on Germany were vast and while bombing didn't win the war on its own, it almost certainly made victory in the West possible. After all, image Normandy with a decent German air force presence...
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.

    We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.

    Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.

    A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".

    Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.

    Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.

    Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.

    What a shitshow this Govt has become.

    Add suspended and it would be much more. However it is obviously less likely a cyclist would kill a pedestrian than a driver even if both were just careless, however it can still happen.

    There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
    We already do. It's death by wantonly and furiously cycling which is a law for centuries already so what is the reason for a new law?

    Tragic accidents happen and that simply is part of life, if there's been a tragic accident then there's no reason for anyone to be imprisoned. If it's negligence though, then there would be.

    If a pedestrian without looking steps onto a road and is hit by a cyclist/driver and dies then that's tragic and the cyclist/driver has to live with that for the rest of their life despite doing perhaps nothing wrong. Prison isn't appropriate there.

    If on the other hand a pedestrian is killed by someone illegally driving or cycling on a pavement, then that's a different matter.

    Each case needs to be looked at its own merits, but there's no need for new laws as we already have existing ones.
    Most of your comment is fair - however the last paragraph ignores that where existing law is an illogical mess, it desperately needs to be redrawn.

    Take careless driving, which is defined as a less serious version of dangerous driving - "below" and "far below" 'standards expected of a careful and competent driver'.

    The upshot of that is that inherently dangerous behaviour, such as overtaking round a blind bend or over a blind brow on the wrong side of the road, or driving for a distance at high speed (say 50mph) into a blinding sunset, is often charged as "careless", or a charge of dangerous driving plea bargained with the CPS down to a guilty plea for careless.

    Careless is to do with inattention; dangerous is a different category of behaviour, not a difference of degree.

    Which is why a comprehensive review is required.
    Plea bargains are a part of the legal system, I don't like them though at least we're not as bad as America with them.

    But the language as used seems reasonable to me, given it needs to be phrased in language 'a reasonable person' can understand if it ends up before a jury.

    If someone is acting dangerously, as you say, then absolutely that is far below the standards expected, so the existing law already applies.
    I think you're wrong on that, and a greater familiarity with how actual cases are actually charged might change your view.

    But I'm not about to begin peppering PB with scores of dangerous drivers running down pedestrians and cyclists videos, or vids where deliberate assaults by driving at people on cycles were charged as careless, PBers will be glad to hear.
    I'm glad you're not going to, because that's no different to almost any walk of life. The problem is not the law, the problem is the criminal justice system and the law does not get applied.

    I was a witness to people breaking into a premises and robbing it. A passing Police officer also heard the alarm going off and arrested them red handed loading stolen TVs into their boot. I gave a witness statement and was called as a prosecution witness. 4 times I had to go to court, 3 times the case got postponed. I was told the perps weren't pleading guilty in advance as they were hoping I wouldn't turn up as a witness so my testimony would be inadmissible, which apparently happens a lot. 4th time as soon as I arrived I was told by the prosecutor "since you're here, they've decided to plead guilty to handling stolen goods" as a lesser offence than the breaking and entering and the prosecutor accepted the plea.

    The criminal justice system is broken. We don't need new laws, we need to apply the laws we already have. That's true with dangerous driving, but its true with a plethora of other crimes too.
    Still disagree on that.

    Where existing laws are not logical or fit for purpose (Dangerous Driving) they need to be reframed. Where existing laws are difficult or impossible to enforce (eg antisocial parking) they need to be streamlined.

    A good example of where reframing has had a positive effect was Mobile Phone Driving laws being tightened up to remove loopholes a couple of years ago; they are now having more of an impact on the problem.

    One which may be going to have a useful impact is possession of Nitrous Oxide being outlawed, which is being categorised as a class C drug aiui. Use of the drug whilst driving is an issue, but it is very difficult to detect by urine or blood samples.
    But dangerous driving is both logical and fit for purpose.

    If someone is driving dangerously, such as overtaking on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend, then is that operating "far below" the expected standards? Yes, it is. So its already unlawful.

    If the law isn't being applied, because of plea bargains, then changing the law won't change that as the CPS will still plea down to the lesser offence anyway as that's what they do all the frigging time.

    Yes if there's loopholes or new issues then fixing them may be appropriate, mobile phones being a new technology is an excellent case in point, but there's no loophole that makes dangerous driving lawful, its just the criminal justice system isn't doing its job properly.
    Let's leave this for today.
    I can take over?

    The only reason we even have a "death by dangerous driving" law is because society thinks killing someone with a car is a less serious crime than by other methods.

    That's not to say I want more drivers in prison. I think much longer driving bans are the solution, and fines linked to income (or value if the car). A permanent ban should be the default sentence for any death by careless/dangerous.
    Well of course it does, because it is a less serious crime.

    Just as a train driver who kills someone who is standing on the tracks has committed a less serious crime, if a crime at all.

    And just as a cyclist killing someone has committed a less serious crime too, which is why its own crime has existed for centuries too. Its entirely consistent.

    In the extremely unlikely event it was deliberate murder, then the charge of murder should be used and can be.
    If you drive dangerously and kill someone, why is the maximum sentence for that less severe than that which you could get for manslaughter? Why isn't it manslaughter?
    Because juries previously typically wouldn't convict for manslaughter, so the then-new law was introduced in order to get more convictions not fewer.
    Which proves the point. A life taken by a driver is seen as less valuable than one taken by anyone else. We need a cultural shift.
    Why?

    It's not the value of the life, it's the person on trial.

    If a cyclist accidentally killed someone, and it happens, should it be manslaughter?

    There's been other charges that exist for centuries because quite rightly tragic accidents aren't considered manslaughter, which has a higher bar, but there's still a way to hold the perpetrator to account.

    And in the unlikely event it does amount to murder or manslaughter to those are still options too.
  • Options
    On topic... We moved around a lot when I was growing up (Dad was in the oil industry) so uniforms changed frequently. My older brothers both had uniforms in primary (late 70s) and secondary (80s) school.

    My primary school didn't have a uniform. It used some common sense and trusted parents to dress their children suitably. Trousers were always dark (except in the summer when you could wear lighter colours or shorts); a shirt or polo/t-shirt and a jumper/sweater. There were no restrictions on colour or pattern - my school photos show me a in Lego jumper from M&S. Footwear again had to be sensible (no basketball boots) and usually from Clarks in the village.

    Of course, the school was stupid. They realised that children looked after their own clothes better than a school uniform. Go home at the end of the second week of term in torn trousers or a ripped jumper and you'd be in for a hiding from your parents!

    When it came to high school, it was simple uniform. White shirt/blouse, black trousers/skirt, black blazer. You could buy them from any shop. The only restriction was the red school tie had to bought from a clothes shop in the village and you (Mum) had to sew the school logo patch onto the blazer. It was pragmatic.

    As an aside, when we moved to Sussex in the early 90s, I was just going to secondary school. The school shop in the well-heeled town sold us everything - blazer, knitwear, trousers, white shirts, blue shirts, socks. When I turned up fully-kitted out, neither the head of year nor the headmaster were amused with the shop. It wasn't necessary. All that was needed was a school jumper and a tie. No blazers. No shirts. No socks. No trousers. They made the shop refund everything. Trousers, shirts and socks inevitably came from M&S.

    I really don't know what schools are playing at with the uniform issue. Instead of worrying about what a child is dressed in, worry about whether they can read and bloody write.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,133
    ....
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,871

    Sean_F said:

    Re: bombing

    In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.

    The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.

    So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.

    I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.

    But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.

    After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
    Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.

    The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
    John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid.
  • Options

    Sean_F said:

    Re: bombing

    In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.

    The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.

    So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.

    I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.

    But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.

    After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
    Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.

    The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
    John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid.
    Noted.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,573
    kjh said:

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
    6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022

    I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come

    I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
    Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.

    Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.

    There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
    I surprisingly used cash the other day for the first time in ages. It was fortunate I had it. I only had it because I got a new debit card to use in America and needed to use it in an ATM first. The pub's system went down. It was panic. They were having to take customers details who didn't have cash. Fortunately I sailed through the Mayhew. Very lucky as I never use cash otherwise.
    The more sophisticated society becomes, the more vulnerable it is to failure. Cash is great.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641
    viewcode said:

    kjh said:

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
    6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022

    I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come

    I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
    Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.

    Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.

    There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
    I surprisingly used cash the other day for the first time in ages. It was fortunate I had it. I only had it because I got a new debit card to use in America and needed to use it in an ATM first. The pub's system went down. It was panic. They were having to take customers details who didn't have cash. Fortunately I sailed through the Mayhew. Very lucky as I never use cash otherwise.
    The more sophisticated society becomes, the more vulnerable it is to failure. Cash is great.
    Complexity can also encompass greater resilience.
  • Options
    Re Mid Beds: Labour 3.0 i.e. 2-1 fav. I don't think we have ever seen a 2-1 favourite in a by-election or individual seat market, or that we ever will again. Quite extraordinary. I have a small bet on the LDs but not feeling very confident, rather wish I hadn't.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    AlistairM said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/

    ...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable...

    https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756

    Last Winter every day Russia was sending missiles against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Now it seems that it is Ukraine that are sending missiles against Russian military targets every day. Without this defence system it becomes even harder for Russia to defend Crimea and their Navy is even more vulnerable.
    Who could have foreseen that Ukraine's tactic of sending your missiles against enemy military targets, such as missile warehouses, radar, air defences etc night be a more fruitful decision than Russia's tactic of sending missiles against random apartment blocks attempting to terrorise the inhabitants?
    What’s the difference between the Russians and both sides in WWII? I seem to recall residential areas being bombed when I was young. And celebrated by those doing the bombing!
    You have a point.

    Putin is no worse than Hitler.
    Didn't London bomb Berlin before Berlin bombed London?

    So no worse than Churchill (on the bombing civilians metric)?

    If the version of history that says that Churchill ordered this to make Hitler retaliate against London rather than bombing the RAF is true, does it make Winston an expert strategist, or an evil man who sacrificed his own civilians?

    If you asked people in England then, or Ukraine now, would you prefer the Nazis to bomb you or your defences, the "Blitz Spirit" would apply
    Warsaw and Rotterdam might beg to differ on "London started the bombing."
    Italians against the Ottomans in Libya, 1911.
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,069

    viewcode said:

    kjh said:

    Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
    Outlier.

    Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.

    But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.

    Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.

    However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.

    Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
    6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022

    I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come

    I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
    Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.

    Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.

    There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
    I surprisingly used cash the other day for the first time in ages. It was fortunate I had it. I only had it because I got a new debit card to use in America and needed to use it in an ATM first. The pub's system went down. It was panic. They were having to take customers details who didn't have cash. Fortunately I sailed through the Mayhew. Very lucky as I never use cash otherwise.
    The more sophisticated society becomes, the more vulnerable it is to failure. Cash is great.
    Complexity can also encompass greater resilience.
    I recall pointing out that a solution was unnecessarily complicated in a design meeting once.

    I was fairly junior at the time, so it was possibly a bit out of turn, but I felt it needed to be said. My concerns were of course summarily dismissed by the senior consultants.

    2 years later the plug was pulled and £100m had to be written off by Company X. Too complex to deliver, they said.

    Still, the consultants did fine out of it and had already moved on to their next victim. Which of course was the whole point. Doh! Lesson learned.


    I can't help but think of that meeting every time a government IT project fails.
This discussion has been closed.