The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.
But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.
Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.
There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.
I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.
Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
It's much worse.
Rishi Sunak was told by lawyers that his emergency Rwanda scheme will be “seriously impeded” from working because it “provides an easy way” for migrants to avoid deportation.
The prime minister insisted on Thursday that his new law aimed at reviving the policy was the only approach that would prevent further legal challenges scuppering flights. He said he was confident that flights would take off before the general election and pledged to “finish the job”.
However, The Times has been told that Downing Street was warned by two senior lawyers that the scheme risked failure because it would continue to allow migrants to lodge challenges against their individual removal to Rwanda. Legal advice from a senior government lawyer said “the scheme would be seriously impeded” if the bill did not include a so-called “ouster clause” that barred individual legal challenges.
Separate external legal counsel that was sought by the government warned that the failure to bar individual challenges “is inconsistent with the intellectual underpinning of the bill and also would provide an easy way for many applicants to avoid the effects of the bill”....
...The Safety of Rwanda Bill, presented to parliament on Thursday, will bar systematic challenges being brought against the policy by instructing immigration officers, courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as a “conclusively safe country”. However, clause four of the bill is seen by critics of the legislation as a weakness because it says that people can make claims if there is “compelling evidence relating specifically to a person’s individual circumstances”.
A senior Conservative MP and lawyer said that this would leave the courts “inundated” with legal claims from migrants helped by immigration lawyers who would “come up with a whole range of innovative reasons why Rwanda is unsafe for a particular individual”.
The fascinating thing about PMQs was the way that Sunak tore the bill apart line by line. "Have you read it?" he kept asking Sunak. Clearly they haven't - Sunak knows the spin lines but not the detail which rather show up the spin lines as ignorant lies.
As an "have you read it" practitioner I make Good Money from reading such documents and pulling out details that others have missed. So bravo Starmer.
Then we turn back to the Tories and their PB shills. "We have a plan, what is Labour's plan." They do not have a plan. What they claim to be a plan is unworkable. Laughable. Have they read their "plan". Have they *understood* it? This is crayon politics , sketched by idiots to placate morons.
I'll say it again, Brexit and the referendum campaign with its focus on immigration, has radicalised the Tories.
At some point Starmer or Farage is going to point out the Tories are focussed on a few thousand illegal migrants and not on the 1.5 million legal migration.
Except that is no longer true now. The government's new proposals mean that foreign immigrants will be banned from working in the UK unless they have a job offer for more than £38k or work in a shortage occupation like social care
Interesting article. I wasn’t aware of the position of voluntary organisations. It seems to me that they also should be able to avail themselves of the “proportionate means for legitimate exclusion.”
I tend not to comment on this topic, because I am not Scottish or female or trans. But it has always struck me that eliding sex with gender is the root of all chaos here. Gender is fluid through time and location. What it means to be a man or a woman changes. However, sex although not completely binary mostly is.
Overall in most cases, I think if we were a bit clearer on what should be exclusive on the basis of sex and what should be exclusive on the basis of gender we may get some sense. For the most part I don’t see why there should be many gender-based exclusions - and I am sure many agree with that. However, clearly where there are risks - support groups for female survivors of rape and abuse - it makes sense to sex exclusion. Same with most sports (whether contact based or otherwise) - if you’ve been through a male puberty it is daft to put females against you.
However, in protecting females in prison and what not, we should not lose sight of trans victims of violence and rape. I read an article in the LRB that suggested that trans women in male prisons can also be victims of horrific levels of violence and rape. Apparently the same to can be said in society in genreral.
So like most issues it’s complicated and there is an element of risk to manage to protect folk. Of course that doesn’t help for arguments on the internets.
Men in prison who claim to be trans and are at risk of rape and violence are at risk of this from other men. This is a problem of male violence and needs to be resolved within male prisons. It is NOT for women to solve this or to take on the burden and risk of solving this. Women are not support animals for men...
It hasn't. There is no absolute ban on male sexual offenders being housed in female prisons in Scotland.
"..to some extent...", it has. I didn't say they had brought in an absolute ban.
There should be no males of any type in women's prisons.
What about trans-men? You would class them as women, and should therefore be in women's single-sex areas? Despite having muscles, beards, being pumped full of testosterone, and sexually attracted to women.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
Leon's intervention on this is not so much armchair general, as armchair Kissinger.
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
The upside I suppose would be that Alan Rickman’s German Secretary wouldn’t be working there so Emma Thompson wouldn’t have to play that miserable Joni Mitchell music, Thomas Brodie- Sangster’s character wouldn’t have spent years in juvenile detention for endangering airport security and Colin Firth would never have to be crushed a year later when his annoying sister in law moves in with him and Aurelie and ruins their relationship.
And Claudia Schiffer will probably just pass the income threshold.
My Woke review of "Love Actually" is that it is not about love, but rather is deeply misogynistic. Each of the interlinked sub plots is a different variation on male fantasy.
Seducing the hired help, the compliant wife turning a blind eye to an office affair for the sake of the kids, seducing a different sort of hired help with the frisson of being foreign, that porn permits love, that even a plain bloke with an English accent is a babe magnet to nymphomaniacs in America, that learning to play music gets the girl of your dreams and even of latent homosexuality.
It is all delivered with charm but is deeply suspect when looked at in this light.
Interesting article. I wasn’t aware of the position of voluntary organisations. It seems to me that they also should be able to avail themselves of the “proportionate means for legitimate exclusion.”
I tend not to comment on this topic, because I am not Scottish or female or trans. But it has always struck me that eliding sex with gender is the root of all chaos here. Gender is fluid through time and location. What it means to be a man or a woman changes. However, sex although not completely binary mostly is.
Overall in most cases, I think if we were a bit clearer on what should be exclusive on the basis of sex and what should be exclusive on the basis of gender we may get some sense. For the most part I don’t see why there should be many gender-based exclusions - and I am sure many agree with that. However, clearly where there are risks - support groups for female survivors of rape and abuse - it makes sense to sex exclusion. Same with most sports (whether contact based or otherwise) - if you’ve been through a male puberty it is daft to put females against you.
However, in protecting females in prison and what not, we should not lose sight of trans victims of violence and rape. I read an article in the LRB that suggested that trans women in male prisons can also be victims of horrific levels of violence and rape. Apparently the same to can be said in society in genreral.
So like most issues it’s complicated and there is an element of risk to manage to protect folk. Of course that doesn’t help for arguments on the internets.
Men in prison who claim to be trans and are at risk of rape and violence are at risk of this from other men. This is a problem of male violence and needs to be resolved within male prisons. It is NOT for women to solve this or to take on the burden and risk of solving this. Women are not support animals for men...
It hasn't. There is no absolute ban on male sexual offenders being housed in female prisons in Scotland.
"..to some extent...", it has. I didn't say they had brought in an absolute ban.
There should be no males of any type in women's prisons.
What about trans-men? You would class them as women, and should therefore be in women's single-sex areas? Despite having muscles, beards, being pumped full of testosterone, and sexually attracted to women.
How do you know they are attracted to women > You are presuming their sexuality.
Many so-called trans women claim to be "lesbians" after all.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
"In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".
Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"
Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.
We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).
I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.
The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.
Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.
No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me
It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess
People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
I don't accept your definition of woke - which is that of the right wing blob.
There is no definition of 'woke' - that is the brilliance of it being used as a right-wing slur.
This government is too woke apparently according to some but also, extreme left anti-semitism is woke.
Presumably by deduction this government is a government of extreme left anti-semitism, which may come as a surprise to Sunak and co.
I mean, do you really honestly not get it? How the Woke obsession with intersectionality and decolonialism leads the Jews being seen as an oppressor class, worthy of persecution, or at least unworthy of protection from persecution?
Is that honestly beyond your reasoning capacity?
If it is then I despair. Because you are not the stupidest on here
No, you don't get it.
If 'woke' means anything - which it probably doesn't now idiots like you have adopted it as a term of right wing abuse - it means being alive to the reality of groups other than your own. That, of course, includes Jewish people.
What you are critiquing isn't woke at all.
I think it’s slightly stronger than that.
It’s looking at society not as being made up as individuals (the “true” liberal approach) or as a cohesive whole (the whiggish approach).
Instead it groups people into categories based on a single criteria (eg you are a white heterosexual male, you are gay, you are Muslim, you are black, etc) while ignoring the inevitable overlaps between categories.
It then ranks and orders the categories as a basis for policy rather than looking at topics based on individual merits.
That’s why you end up with things like a tolerance for what often veers into anti-semitism (vs opposition to the government of Israel) because “Jews” as a category are viewed as relatively undeserving
It’s a faulty intellectual framework with divisive and damaging real world consequences
While ignoring the inevitable overlaps between categories, you say? Well, that's just not true. Intersectionality is a favourite buzzword among the Woke. Criticise all you want, but get the basics right.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
No, we did not. More than that: Putin's Russia will take *anything* as a slight if they get advantage from it. Their neuroses are legion. And western fools (even those with self-proclaimed high IQs) slurp it up.
You want to give in to fascistic evil. I'm unsurprised.
"In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".
Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"
Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.
We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).
I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.
The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.
Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.
No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me
It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess
People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
I don't accept your definition of woke - which is that of the right wing blob.
There is no definition of 'woke' - that is the brilliance of it being used as a right-wing slur.
This government is too woke apparently according to some but also, extreme left anti-semitism is woke.
Presumably by deduction this government is a government of extreme left anti-semitism, which may come as a surprise to Sunak and co.
I mean, do you really honestly not get it? How the Woke obsession with intersectionality and decolonialism leads the Jews being seen as an oppressor class, worthy of persecution, or at least unworthy of protection from persecution?
Is that honestly beyond your reasoning capacity?
If it is then I despair. Because you are not the stupidest on here
If you used only a modicum of your prodigious IQ to stop and think about this rather than funnelling the latest alt-right obsession you’d realise it’s really rather obvious. Many/most groups of people are both oppressors and oppressed.
Indeed I’d go so far as to say that’s a big part of the point of intersectionality. That being said, both you and I fall into the category where we are very much more oppressor than oppressed. I’m just a little less fragile about it.
The Harvard, MIT etc furore is a good example of another aspect of woke: that prejudice can often be institutionalised without any individual actively promoting such prejudice. Funnily enough that is what BLM argue, but you struggle to see that when it doesn’t accord with your particular biases.
Interesting but irrelevant. We are way beyond all that now
Not true. The part of the Jewish community pushing for genocide in Gaza are both oppressor and oppressed. Jews are not an oppressor class, but some Jews are oppressors.
Though I would definitely concede that more people than I thought consider Jews in general as responsible for Israel’s fascism. That’s deeply worrying, but doesn’t follow from intersectionality and decolonialism. It follows from stupidity and ignorance.
Both you and TOPPING fall into the trap of seeing binary thinking as a feature of woke, rather than a bug brought in by the ignorant.
Binary thinking happens on both sides, it is equally foolish. Don’t indulge it. It’s easy to escape whatever your biases eg I fundamentally disagree with Rochdale on Israel/Gaza but can recognise he is thinking and arguing in a nuanced, thoughtful, not binary way.
He isn’t responsible for Netanyahu’s useful idiots who can’t see beyond ‘Israel good Hamas bad’. Nor are the work responsible for the antisemites amongst us.
"sorry, two kids in tow, can't keep up" - and it shows.
It is not my binary thinking or imposing a dynamic on the situation. A situation where everyone is even handed and on the one hand about it.
It is what we are seeing on the streets, in opinion polls, in phone ins from one segment of the left. Look at some of the pro-Palestinian marches and at the profile of the people attending. Relatively few look like they were born further south east than Maidstone. It is the framing of the issue by left wing activists that we are discussing which leads to anti-semitism for the reasons explained above.
Once the kids are settled in front of their x-boxes perhaps you can take the time to read what we have been saying.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Putin was playing a game? You know, the sort of thing he's been doing for the last couple of decades?
Gorbachev and Putin made approaches to NATO to join. As many commentaries point out, NATO, fresh from its Cold War victory, said fuck off. As was famously said by some US General or other, don't worry we are going to be the world's policeman from now and we don't need any help from you.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
Please, can we all stick with 'Chairborne Division' as the preferred pejorative? I forget who coined it, but it's genius.
(We await a similarly apt pejorative for those who would sue for peace)
AMALCUMB
“Chairborne Division” is, indeed, very good
Er ... not entirely sure about that, given the importance of drones in modern warfare and the role of people in air-conned mobile conexes who fight wars while, indeed, sitting in chairs.
Interesting article. I wasn’t aware of the position of voluntary organisations. It seems to me that they also should be able to avail themselves of the “proportionate means for legitimate exclusion.”
I tend not to comment on this topic, because I am not Scottish or female or trans. But it has always struck me that eliding sex with gender is the root of all chaos here. Gender is fluid through time and location. What it means to be a man or a woman changes. However, sex although not completely binary mostly is.
Overall in most cases, I think if we were a bit clearer on what should be exclusive on the basis of sex and what should be exclusive on the basis of gender we may get some sense. For the most part I don’t see why there should be many gender-based exclusions - and I am sure many agree with that. However, clearly where there are risks - support groups for female survivors of rape and abuse - it makes sense to sex exclusion. Same with most sports (whether contact based or otherwise) - if you’ve been through a male puberty it is daft to put females against you.
However, in protecting females in prison and what not, we should not lose sight of trans victims of violence and rape. I read an article in the LRB that suggested that trans women in male prisons can also be victims of horrific levels of violence and rape. Apparently the same to can be said in society in genreral.
So like most issues it’s complicated and there is an element of risk to manage to protect folk. Of course that doesn’t help for arguments on the internets.
Men in prison who claim to be trans and are at risk of rape and violence are at risk of this from other men. This is a problem of male violence and needs to be resolved within male prisons. It is NOT for women to solve this or to take on the burden and risk of solving this. Women are not support animals for men...
It hasn't. There is no absolute ban on male sexual offenders being housed in female prisons in Scotland.
"..to some extent...", it has. I didn't say they had brought in an absolute ban.
There should be no males of any type in women's prisons.
What about trans-men? You would class them as women, and should therefore be in women's single-sex areas? Despite having muscles, beards, being pumped full of testosterone, and sexually attracted to women.
How do you know they are attracted to women > You are presuming their sexuality.
Many so-called trans women claim to be "lesbians" after all.
Well, it's a small sample, but all the trans-men I know are attracted to women.
Good morning @Cyclefree. Thank you for the article: same review as usual. With regards to two of your points (one in the article, one in the comments) as follows:
i) Your Point 2 in the article You write that "The court stated that a person without a GRC, no matter how they identified or presented, remained a member of the sex they were born and had no prima facie right to use or access single sex spaces or services intended for the opposite sex". This point was brought up by @DavidL after the court decision. IIUC the court statement in question was part of the obiter dicta (persuasive) not the ratio decidendi (binding), and so is advisory not decisive. You know the difference between the two but for all those who don't, see[1]
ii) Your practical option of unisex toilets You write that "The practical answer is to use those loos which are effectively unisex ie a locked room with washbasin". Whilst an admirable solution, it has to be pointed out that the current Government is going out of its way to prevent those loos from existing, see[2]
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
Please, can we all stick with 'Chairborne Division' as the preferred pejorative? I forget who coined it, but it's genius.
(We await a similarly apt pejorative for those who would sue for peace)
AMALCUMB
“Chairborne Division” is, indeed, very good
Er ... not entirely sure about that, given the importance of drones in modern warfare and the role of people in air-conned mobile conexes who fight wars while, indeed, sitting in chairs.
If you ever conjure up a wittier phrase, be sure to let us know
Off topic but @MightyAlex made a post last night that I didn't see until this morning and I wanted to mention it because it deserved a reply from me. He was disagreeing (sort of) with me and siding with @hyufd (sort of) and I thought it an excellent post, not least because I was posting something similar only a week or so previously, so it made me think twice about what I was arguing.
Also like to thank @hyufd for an excellent argument.
I do have a reply to square the circle and get myself out of my contradiction, but we have moved on from that argument now.
Aye, excellent post - and very true. A colleague of mine made Prof in relatively short order due in large part to a lucky* break in funding (essentially a charity she'd worked with decided to go big on research and funded her from lecturer to Prof over about five years). Now, she is an excellent academic and would no doubt have succeeded anyway, but it would have taken longer through multiple research grants to NIHR etc. She actually forced the Uni's hand a bit on the Prof thing anyway, having secured an offer of a chair elsewhere contingent on bringing her substantial charity funding - the Uni promoted (maybe slightly early, but only by a year or two) rather than lose her.
Re HYUFD, I started a reply his post last night, with the word "Bollocks" starting off, but never finished it. Needless to say I agree with what you and Carnyx were saying and, apart from anything else, we'd also lose the bright young British post-docs who start relationships with foreign PhD students and where they would both be free to both work in other countries but not here.
*she also made her own luck, of course - the charity were sufficiently impressed with her past work to be willing to bet big on her over five years, but it required the alignment of healthy charity finances and a CEO with a strong belief in the value of research beyond their core activities
Absolutely agree about the realities of family life. So many of my colleagues ... but even if the Tories are a party of the family, THIS IS THE WRONG SORT OF FAMILY AND DOESN'T COUNT.
Also wondering why we are obsessing about foreign intruders into the UK datasphere when we seem to have plenty opf homegrown saboteurs trying to return universities to the state of 200 years ago, when, for instance, Oxford was 50% Anglican seminary for trainee vicars and 50% learning the young gents to get pissed in a gentlemanlu manner withotu upsetting anyone more important than restaurant owners or local oiks. If the y.g. wrote a spot of poetry before leaving with a lower second in classics, or the t.v. did a spot of scholarship before moving to their nice rectory worth £200K pa in modern terms, that was merely a bonus.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
Please, can we all stick with 'Chairborne Division' as the preferred pejorative? I forget who coined it, but it's genius.
(We await a similarly apt pejorative for those who would sue for peace)
AMALCUMB
“Chairborne Division” is, indeed, very good
Er ... not entirely sure about that, given the importance of drones in modern warfare and the role of people in air-conned mobile conexes who fight wars while, indeed, sitting in chairs.
If you ever conjure up a wittier phrase, be sure to let us know
Being witty means being sufficiently internally consistent that the reader isn't brought to a sudden halt by something obvious. As, indeed, I was with the issue I have just raised.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
Good header. I think the political implications are a teensy bit different - in a way a loss would be quite good for Sunak (if anything can be good for him now) as it reminds us (and his backbenchers) that he's fighting for womens' rights against the nasty woke judges.
It's got be on the cards that the judge rules in the UK Government's favour though. The tide is going out against the SNP, Labour do have all the luck at the moment; it feels like to rule against would be gutsier than ruling in favour. So I don't think it'll happen.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
Good header. I think the political implications are a teensy bit different - in a way a loss would be quite good for Sunak (if anything can be good for him now) as it reminds us (and his backbenchers) that he's fighting for womens' rights against the nasty woke judges.
It's got be on the cards that the judge rules in the UK Government's favour though. The tide is going out against the SNP, Labour do have all the luck at the moment; it feels like to rule against would be gutsier than ruling in favour. So I don't think it'll happen.
It's yet another area where SKS is against Scottish Labour policy, though. Which complicates things. How, as Cyclefree says, is not clear.
Good header. I think the political implications are a teensy bit different - in a way a loss would be quite good for Sunak (if anything can be good for him now) as it reminds us (and his backbenchers) that he's fighting for womens' rights against the nasty woke judges.
It's got be on the cards that the judge rules in the UK Government's favour though. The tide is going out against the SNP, Labour do have all the luck at the moment; it feels like to rule against would be gutsier than ruling in favour. So I don't think it'll happen.
It's yet another area where SKS is against Scottish Labour policy, though. Which complicates things. How, as Cyclefree says, is not clear.
Which is why if the judge rules for Sunak, they can all say 'we accept the ruling' and put some lovely paper over those cracks.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
Whilst true, (you'll be interested in John Mearsheimer: google him), it's rather sadly not relevant. the decision before us is not to establish peace or relitigate the past, it's whether to abandon the Ukranians. I hope that we will not
As for your point about Finland: well, Finlandization (where a smaller country is dominated by a larger one to the point of not having an independent foreign policy) isn't a perjorative for nothing.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
Whilst true, (you'll be interested in John Mearsheimer: google him), it's rather sadly not relevant. the decision before us is not to establish peace or relitigate the past, it's whether to abandon the Ukranians. I hope that we will not
As for your point about Finland: well, Finlandization (where a smaller country is dominated by a larger one to the point of not having an independent foreign policy) isn't a perjorative for nothing.
I’m not claiming Finlandisation is morally desirable - it surely isn’t - however it did keep the peace in Europe and it allowed Finland to quietly prosper and move slowly west (eg into the EU)
We might have been better doing that than instantly absorbing all the Warsaw pact countries and the Baltics into NATO
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
Whilst true, (you'll be interested in John Mearsheimer: google him), it's rather sadly not relevant. the decision before us is not to establish peace or relitigate the past, it's whether to abandon the Ukranians. I hope that we will not
As for your point about Finland: well, Finlandization (where a smaller country is dominated by a larger one to the point of not having an independent foreign policy) isn't a perjorative for nothing.
There's an interesting debate on the Spectator's YT channel - a commentator argues that it's actually not the holding of land that's the sticking point in negotiations, it's the security and integrity of Ukraine (however large or small). Russia wants to ensure that it can dominate Ukraine militarily - Ukraine wants to ensure that it can't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOTHJh7ixwA
If a peace therefore can absolutely hem Russia in by providing what's left of Ukraine with powerful security guarantees and a strong, capable military, as well as an EU membership pathway, the West can consider that a considerable win.
"In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".
Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"
Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.
We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).
I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.
The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.
Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.
No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me
It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess
People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
I don't accept your definition of woke - which is that of the right wing blob.
There is no definition of 'woke' - that is the brilliance of it being used as a right-wing slur.
This government is too woke apparently according to some but also, extreme left anti-semitism is woke.
Presumably by deduction this government is a government of extreme left anti-semitism, which may come as a surprise to Sunak and co.
I mean, do you really honestly not get it? How the Woke obsession with intersectionality and decolonialism leads the Jews being seen as an oppressor class, worthy of persecution, or at least unworthy of protection from persecution?
Is that honestly beyond your reasoning capacity?
If it is then I despair. Because you are not the stupidest on here
If you used only a modicum of your prodigious IQ to stop and think about this rather than funnelling the latest alt-right obsession you’d realise it’s really rather obvious. Many/most groups of people are both oppressors and oppressed.
Indeed I’d go so far as to say that’s a big part of the point of intersectionality. That being said, both you and I fall into the category where we are very much more oppressor than oppressed. I’m just a little less fragile about it.
The Harvard, MIT etc furore is a good example of another aspect of woke: that prejudice can often be institutionalised without any individual actively promoting such prejudice. Funnily enough that is what BLM argue, but you struggle to see that when it doesn’t accord with your particular biases.
Interesting but irrelevant. We are way beyond all that now
Not true. The part of the Jewish community pushing for genocide in Gaza are both oppressor and oppressed. Jews are not an oppressor class, but some Jews are oppressors.
Though I would definitely concede that more people than I thought consider Jews in general as responsible for Israel’s fascism. That’s deeply worrying, but doesn’t follow from intersectionality and decolonialism. It follows from stupidity and ignorance.
Both you and TOPPING fall into the trap of seeing binary thinking as a feature of woke, rather than a bug brought in by the ignorant.
Binary thinking happens on both sides, it is equally foolish. Don’t indulge it. It’s easy to escape whatever your biases eg I fundamentally disagree with Rochdale on Israel/Gaza but can recognise he is thinking and arguing in a nuanced, thoughtful, not binary way.
"In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".
Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"
Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.
We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).
I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.
The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.
Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.
No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me
It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess
People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
I don't accept your definition of woke - which is that of the right wing blob.
There is no definition of 'woke' - that is the brilliance of it being used as a right-wing slur.
This government is too woke apparently according to some but also, extreme left anti-semitism is woke.
Presumably by deduction this government is a government of extreme left anti-semitism, which may come as a surprise to Sunak and co.
I mean, do you really honestly not get it? How the Woke obsession with intersectionality and decolonialism leads the Jews being seen as an oppressor class, worthy of persecution, or at least unworthy of protection from persecution?
Is that honestly beyond your reasoning capacity?
If it is then I despair. Because you are not the stupidest on here
If you used only a modicum of your prodigious IQ to stop and think about this rather than funnelling the latest alt-right obsession you’d realise it’s really rather obvious. Many/most groups of people are both oppressors and oppressed.
Indeed I’d go so far as to say that’s a big part of the point of intersectionality. That being said, both you and I fall into the category where we are very much more oppressor than oppressed. I’m just a little less fragile about it.
The Harvard, MIT etc furore is a good example of another aspect of woke: that prejudice can often be institutionalised without any individual actively promoting such prejudice. Funnily enough that is what BLM argue, but you struggle to see that when it doesn’t accord with your particular biases.
I don't think that either you or Leon count as "oppressor" simply by virute of which group you belong to.
We are both part of a group live in and participate in a system that oppresses poor people in UK and much of the global south systematically. It’s not our fault, I don’t feel guilty, but we should be prepared to dismantle that system eg by promoting policies that benefit the global south at the expense of rich people in the UK.
A wealth tax hypothecated for international development would be a good example.
My own view is that international trade, and capitalism generally, have done a huge amount to reduce levels of poverty in the Global South. When I was born, 55% of the world’s population lived in absolute poverty, compared to 8% now.
I agree with that. Perhaps I’m just being idealistic but I think it is possible to share the proceeds of capitalism’s immense success more fairly without losing the benefits of it.
It is the particular brand of spiv shareholder capitalism that we have found ourselves in that is oppressive imo
Off topic but @MightyAlex made a post last night that I didn't see until this morning and I wanted to mention it because it deserved a reply from me. He was disagreeing (sort of) with me and siding with @hyufd (sort of) and I thought it an excellent post, not least because I was posting something similar only a week or so previously, so it made me think twice about what I was arguing.
Also like to thank @hyufd for an excellent argument.
I do have a reply to square the circle and get myself out of my contradiction, but we have moved on from that argument now.
Aye, excellent post - and very true. A colleague of mine made Prof in relatively short order due in large part to a lucky* break in funding (essentially a charity she'd worked with decided to go big on research and funded her from lecturer to Prof over about five years). Now, she is an excellent academic and would no doubt have succeeded anyway, but it would have taken longer through multiple research grants to NIHR etc. She actually forced the Uni's hand a bit on the Prof thing anyway, having secured an offer of a chair elsewhere contingent on bringing her substantial charity funding - the Uni promoted (maybe slightly early, but only by a year or two) rather than lose her.
Re HYUFD, I started a reply his post last night, with the word "Bollocks" starting off, but never finished it. Needless to say I agree with what you and Carnyx were saying and, apart from anything else, we'd also lose the bright young British post-docs who start relationships with foreign PhD students and where they would both be free to both work in other countries but not here.
*she also made her own luck, of course - the charity were sufficiently impressed with her past work to be willing to bet big on her over five years, but it required the alignment of healthy charity finances and a CEO with a strong belief in the value of research beyond their core activities
Absolutely agree about the realities of family life. So many of my colleagues ... but even if the Tories are a party of the family, THIS IS THE WRONG SORT OF FAMILY AND DOESN'T COUNT.
Also wondering why we are obsessing about foreign intruders into the UK datasphere when we seem to have plenty opf homegrown saboteurs trying to return universities to the state of 200 years ago, when, for instance, Oxford was 50% Anglican seminary for trainee vicars and 50% learning the young gents to get pissed in a gentlemanlu manner withotu upsetting anyone more important than restaurant owners or local oiks. If the y.g. wrote a spot of poetry before leaving with a lower second in classics, or the t.v. did a spot of scholarship before moving to their nice rectory worth £200K pa in modern terms, that was merely a bonus.
We have fees now, if students think a degree will help them get a job they will do it, if not, they will be less likely to do so (although there will still be those doing gentlemanly study for its own sake and still willing to pay for it)
Off topic but @MightyAlex made a post last night that I didn't see until this morning and I wanted to mention it because it deserved a reply from me. He was disagreeing (sort of) with me and siding with @hyufd (sort of) and I thought it an excellent post, not least because I was posting something similar only a week or so previously, so it made me think twice about what I was arguing.
Also like to thank @hyufd for an excellent argument.
I do have a reply to square the circle and get myself out of my contradiction, but we have moved on from that argument now.
Aye, excellent post - and very true. A colleague of mine made Prof in relatively short order due in large part to a lucky* break in funding (essentially a charity she'd worked with decided to go big on research and funded her from lecturer to Prof over about five years). Now, she is an excellent academic and would no doubt have succeeded anyway, but it would have taken longer through multiple research grants to NIHR etc. She actually forced the Uni's hand a bit on the Prof thing anyway, having secured an offer of a chair elsewhere contingent on bringing her substantial charity funding - the Uni promoted (maybe slightly early, but only by a year or two) rather than lose her.
Re HYUFD, I started a reply his post last night, with the word "Bollocks" starting off, but never finished it. Needless to say I agree with what you and Carnyx were saying and, apart from anything else, we'd also lose the bright young British post-docs who start relationships with foreign PhD students and where they would both be free to both work in other countries but not here.
*she also made her own luck, of course - the charity were sufficiently impressed with her past work to be willing to bet big on her over five years, but it required the alignment of healthy charity finances and a CEO with a strong belief in the value of research beyond their core activities
More post doc places for British phd students with these plans though, many of whom can't get academic places post study now
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
And what happens when the US withdraws from NATO, which is probably about a 40-60 shot at the moment?
As long as Ukraine wants to continue the war, we need to support them as much as possible, and encourage the internal collapse of the Russian regime.
It is now more likely that the war will be ended by the collapse of the army, political system or society of one side or the other, than a battlefield breakthrough (though the latter, or a failed attempt at the latter, may lead to the former). See WWI for details.
Putin wants to restore the Russian empire. He will not stop at Kherson unless he is made to. Indeed, his regime is already making noises aimed at legitimising an attack on the Baltic states. Yes, they're in NATO, the EU and Eurozone. That will not stop him if he feels he can go again, any more than Munich sated Hitler. Or the abrogation of Munich when he occupied Prague and London and Paris stood by and looked away.
I don't think government or military collapse on either side, though both sides have come close at times. I think the most likely outcome is a stalemate on pretty much the current lines. This is more or less what happened from 2014-22, albeit with intermittent skirmishes. Neither side has been able to shift the front line significantly since the fall of Kherson a year ago. Its 1916 not 1918.
1918 came though. I'm not suggesting it's going to happen this week.
If they can get the work done in fewer hours then who cares? I've automated all the dashboards and models I'm responsible for and can spend the rest of the weekend enjoying PB/writing about mountains/doing research and my manager is perfectly happy (until the code breaks).
This attitude to public sector workers is perhaps why their productivity doesn't increase as fast at the private sector. They don't get pay rises when they come up with something innovative, and they don't get time off either. Excel 4ever.
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
I thought the government's proposals were without merit but if they prevent anyone making another film as horrendous as Love Actually I may have to rethink that view.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
That's all based on the assumption that the ex-Soviet States, and Eastern European nations, aren't "real" countries, but rather, their destiny is to be part of a Greater Russia.
I think that these peoples have very good reason to look West, rather than East.
I couldn't give a toss about Russia's neuroses. Sometimes, people have to act like adults.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Putin was playing a game? You know, the sort of thing he's been doing for the last couple of decades?
Gorbachev and Putin made approaches to NATO to join. As many commentaries point out, NATO, fresh from its Cold War victory, said fuck off. As was famously said by some US General or other, don't worry we are going to be the world's policeman from now and we don't need any help from you.
Ah I see the 'nuance' that goes curiously missing when you're doing 'Israel Good, Palestine Bad' is back on display. Jolly good.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
That's all based on the assumption that the ex-Soviet States, and Eastern European nations, aren't "real" countries, but rather, their destiny is to be part of a Greater Russia.
I think that these peoples have very good reason to look West, rather than East.
I couldn't give a toss about Russia's neuroses. Sometimes, people have to act like adults.
No, it’s realpolitik
We were too triumphant after the Fall of Communism
A more emollient attitude to Russia MIGHT have avoided some of the conflicts since. Especially this Ukrainian war
Heck. Maybe it wouldn’t? But the Chairborne Division of PB Army 9 is absolutely CERTAIN I’m wrong and sees everything as entirely black and white and won’t be happy til we’ve marched on Moscow. It’s quite childish, to my mind
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
That's all based on the assumption that the ex-Soviet States, and Eastern European nations, aren't "real" countries, but rather, their destiny is to be part of a Greater Russia.
I think that these peoples have very good reason to look West, rather than East.
I couldn't give a toss about Russia's neuroses. Sometimes, people have to act like adults.
Indeed. For some, denying Israel the right to exist is antisemitism, but denying Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania the right to exist is just sensible realpolitik. A glaring hypocrisy.
If they can get the work done in fewer hours then who cares? I've automated all the dashboards and models I'm responsible for and can spend the rest of the weekend enjoying PB/writing about mountains/doing research and my manager is perfectly happy (until the code breaks).
This attitude to public sector workers is perhaps why their productivity doesn't increase as fast at the private sector. They don't get pay rises when they come up with something innovative, and they don't get time off either. Excel 4ever.
If they can get the work done in fewer hours then there is clearly not a 39 or 37.5 hours a week job there which they are currently working on.
You think private sector workers get pay rises when they come up with something innovative. What a quaint notion.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
Whilst true, (you'll be interested in John Mearsheimer: google him), it's rather sadly not relevant. the decision before us is not to establish peace or relitigate the past, it's whether to abandon the Ukranians. I hope that we will not
As for your point about Finland: well, Finlandization (where a smaller country is dominated by a larger one to the point of not having an independent foreign policy) isn't a perjorative for nothing.
There's an interesting debate on the Spectator's YT channel - a commentator argues that it's actually not the holding of land that's the sticking point in negotiations, it's the security and integrity of Ukraine (however large or small). Russia wants to ensure that it can dominate Ukraine militarily - Ukraine wants to ensure that it can't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOTHJh7ixwA
If a peace therefore can absolutely hem Russia in by providing what's left of Ukraine with powerful security guarantees and a strong, capable military, as well as an EU membership pathway, the West can consider that a considerable win.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
That's all based on the assumption that the ex-Soviet States, and Eastern European nations, aren't "real" countries, but rather, their destiny is to be part of a Greater Russia.
I think that these peoples have very good reason to look West, rather than East.
I couldn't give a toss about Russia's neuroses. Sometimes, people have to act like adults.
No, it’s realpolitik
We were too triumphant after the Fall of Communism
A more emollient attitude to Russia MIGHT have avoided some of the conflicts since. Especially this Ukrainian war
Heck. Maybe it wouldn’t? But the Chairborne Division of PB Army 9 is absolutely CERTAIN I’m wrong and sees everything as entirely black and white and won’t be happy til we’ve marched on Moscow. It’s quite childish, to my mind
You care an awful lot about the feelings of the perpetually offended Vladimir Putin.
He saw the hand-wringing over Salisbury, MH17 and the "Red Line" in Syria and took up the slack.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
That's all based on the assumption that the ex-Soviet States, and Eastern European nations, aren't "real" countries, but rather, their destiny is to be part of a Greater Russia.
I think that these peoples have very good reason to look West, rather than East.
I couldn't give a toss about Russia's neuroses. Sometimes, people have to act like adults.
Indeed. For some, denying Israel the right to exist is antisemitism, but denying Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania the right to exist is just sensible realpolitik. A glaring hypocrisy.
Who denied their right to exist? My opinion is that we were possibly too hasty to absorb them into NATO
A very different thing. Please stop putting words in my mouth
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
That's all based on the assumption that the ex-Soviet States, and Eastern European nations, aren't "real" countries, but rather, their destiny is to be part of a Greater Russia.
I think that these peoples have very good reason to look West, rather than East.
I couldn't give a toss about Russia's neuroses. Sometimes, people have to act like adults.
Indeed. For some, denying Israel the right to exist is antisemitism, but denying Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania the right to exist is just sensible realpolitik. A glaring hypocrisy.
Refusing to commit resources to defend a country is not the same as denying its right to exist.
Off topic but @MightyAlex made a post last night that I didn't see until this morning and I wanted to mention it because it deserved a reply from me. He was disagreeing (sort of) with me and siding with @hyufd (sort of) and I thought it an excellent post, not least because I was posting something similar only a week or so previously, so it made me think twice about what I was arguing.
Also like to thank @hyufd for an excellent argument.
I do have a reply to square the circle and get myself out of my contradiction, but we have moved on from that argument now.
Aye, excellent post - and very true. A colleague of mine made Prof in relatively short order due in large part to a lucky* break in funding (essentially a charity she'd worked with decided to go big on research and funded her from lecturer to Prof over about five years). Now, she is an excellent academic and would no doubt have succeeded anyway, but it would have taken longer through multiple research grants to NIHR etc. She actually forced the Uni's hand a bit on the Prof thing anyway, having secured an offer of a chair elsewhere contingent on bringing her substantial charity funding - the Uni promoted (maybe slightly early, but only by a year or two) rather than lose her.
Re HYUFD, I started a reply his post last night, with the word "Bollocks" starting off, but never finished it. Needless to say I agree with what you and Carnyx were saying and, apart from anything else, we'd also lose the bright young British post-docs who start relationships with foreign PhD students and where they would both be free to both work in other countries but not here.
*she also made her own luck, of course - the charity were sufficiently impressed with her past work to be willing to bet big on her over five years, but it required the alignment of healthy charity finances and a CEO with a strong belief in the value of research beyond their core activities
More post doc places for British phd students with these plans though, many of whom can't get academic places post study now
You assume the pie stays the same and Brits (without foreign dependents, natch) get more slices. That's not a given. They may get a larger proportion of a smaller pie and fewer actual slices.
Also, citation needed for "many of whom can't get academic places post study now". I've never known a PhD student who wants to remain in academia struggle to get a post-doc position (this may be field-dependent, for sure). Some struggle to progress beyond that, but that's another issue - those strugglers would still, beyond immediate post-doc level, be competing with foreign academics as the pay would be above the threshold.
Antisemitism is a serious problem with the American Left.
Also, I salute you for realising that when Sam Altman talked about left wing antisemitism, he was really talking about woke. Not a lot of people would have picked that up. Sam Altman, for example, never did.
Why do you think anti-Semitism is now a problem on the Left? Try and work out the philosophy that might have led progressive leftwing people to perceive Jews as an oppressor, colonial class, and therefore justifiable subjects of persecution and not worthy of protection (as happened to whites, white males, etc, before them)
There. That wasn't so hard, was it?
TBF to you Sam Altman hasn't worked it out either - "i still don't understand it, really" - but he will get there, too
One wouldn't say antisemitism coming from the left is 'wokeness' as it long predates it, and is hardly the preserve of those who completely buy into modern progressivism. No one would describe George Galloway or Peter Willsman as 'woke'. Or any of the various dinosaurs who briefly re-emerged during Corbyn's leadership.
Rather it's deeper and goes back to Lenin and Marx. It is that oppressed versus oppressor distinction and the notion that not loudly and aggressively siding with the former, your are complicit in the crimes of the latter.
It's a way of thinking that is disastrously reductive and simplistic - and of course quite often leads to antisemitism if you place Israel as irredeemably in the latter category and the likes of Hamas and its ideological brethren in the former and then attack Jews for understandably not sharing that classification. Even if they are very critical of Israel's actions. And of course it led to antisemitism long before Israel's existence when antisemitic stereotypes also placed Jews in said 'oppressor class'. (See J.A. Hobson).
'Wokeness' is more of a fad ideological offshoot that nonetheless shares the same problems the far left has always had by using the same flawed concepts. It's just because it's faddish and has fashionable less dry additions, it's caught on beyond the usual circles, meaning it's much more visible.
Antisemitism has always been the socialism of fools. Far left and far right alike tend to view the world as a simple battle between some majority "in" group (defined along either racial or class lines) and some small group of outsiders who are responsible for all of the problems of the majority. Jews have found themselves identified with this group on both racial and class lines, by right and left respectively. The persecution by the right has tended to be more absolute because it's easier for a Jew to not be a capitalist than to not be a Jew. But the issue of antisemitism on the left has always been there too. For that matter, there's always been some antisemitism in the political centre as well, it is a sadly prevalent phenomenon. This isn't a "woke" issue imho: if anything, by focusing on cultural and racial injustices more than economic issues, I'd have thought that the whole debate around woke on the far left might have made it less prone to antisemitism not more. I think what has happened is that social media has made political arguments more polarised and more visible on all sides. What might have previously been twenty childish undergrads spouting nonsense in private in a draughty university meeting room has become a thousand people arguing online, for all to see.
There's a lot in that. But I do think that what's happening in Gaza and even more what's happening on the West Bank is actively stirring antisemitism (the West Bank is worse in many ways, as it doesn't have the excuse of retaliation for Hamas's pogrom). The media unselfconsciously report that "Jewish settlers" are increasingly driving people out of their homes, and interview nutters who effectively say yeah, that's what we're doing, because Old Testament. As someone who is technically Jewish I see that as alien as a Flat Earther trying to impose his views by force, and it certainly does stir the "sympathy for the underdog" spirit that informs a lot of left-wing atittudes.
I realise that the key characteristic here is being a nutter, not being a Jew. But I do think it's going to stir up people who've never thought about it into knee-jerk antisemitism. And the fact that that stirring is being indulged by the Israeli Government is just incredible and utterly deplorable. Biden should threaten to cut off aid to Israel unless it stops.
I think this is wrong in that it's 'stirring it up' per se. Not because Netanyahu, Ben Gvir and many of the settlers aren't absolute horrors. Or that's what's happening in Gaza isn't horrific (where blame lies is a separate question). But because it ignores the character of a lot of the appalling antisemitism we've seen - which too often isn't about what Israel has done, but searching for whatever it can find that justifies an 'anti-Zionist' call for its eradication.
It's worth remembering that the protests and awful antisemitic behaviour attached to some of them started directly after 7 October - before Israel had responded at all. The willingness to try and deny or play down the crimes Hamas committed can't be blamed on objections to the Israeli government's response either.
Simply put, there are too many people on the left who long ago formed antisemitic or borderline views based on an incredibly simplistic view of the world, and they erupt whenever the conflict in Israel and Palestine does too. This time it's just been particularly egregious because of the seriousness of the humanitarian situation and the fact the horror that started the war as so indefensible, yet some still tried to defend or minimise it to justify their views.
There's certainly a sentiment in Israel that goes well beyond the right - in fact it may create more despair on the left and centre - that they have long ago been abandoned by progressives internationally and will be criticised and dehumanised by them whatever they do. It's not just Netanyahu and his goons with this view, but centrist, staunch supporters of peace deals like Yair Lapid - who has been completely scathing about part of the Western left's attitude and antisemitism before and since 7 October.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
Whilst true, (you'll be interested in John Mearsheimer: google him), it's rather sadly not relevant. the decision before us is not to establish peace or relitigate the past, it's whether to abandon the Ukranians. I hope that we will not
As for your point about Finland: well, Finlandization (where a smaller country is dominated by a larger one to the point of not having an independent foreign policy) isn't a perjorative for nothing.
I’m not claiming Finlandisation is morally desirable - it surely isn’t - however it did keep the peace in Europe and it allowed Finland to quietly prosper and move slowly west (eg into the EU)
We might have been better doing that than instantly absorbing all the Warsaw pact countries and the Baltics into NATO
Yes I know I’m a fucking Putinist appeaser etc
If Ukraine had been admitted into NATO before 2014 then the current war would never have happened. The problem is that the West was too timid, for fear of upsetting the Russians, and took the Russians at their word (plus also distracted by misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, the opportunity costs of which were immense).
Those were the mistakes. We should not repeat them.
That's all based on the assumption that the ex-Soviet States, and Eastern European nations, aren't "real" countries, but rather, their destiny is to be part of a Greater Russia.
I think that these peoples have very good reason to look West, rather than East.
I couldn't give a toss about Russia's neuroses. Sometimes, people have to act like adults.
Russia absolutely agreed that they are independent nations, and has numerous treaty commitments stating so. It's only since Putin took over that they have revived this nonsense of Greater Russia, which is nothing less than imperialism. The "loss" of Russian territory is given by the political elite as the reason Russia has developed so poorly since the USSR came apart*, not the rampant corruption and looting of the economy by the elite.
* "We'd be much wealthier if we regained these territories". Ignoring the obvious counter that those places are more developed because they aren't ruled by crooks.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
Whilst true, (you'll be interested in John Mearsheimer: google him), it's rather sadly not relevant. the decision before us is not to establish peace or relitigate the past, it's whether to abandon the Ukranians. I hope that we will not
As for your point about Finland: well, Finlandization (where a smaller country is dominated by a larger one to the point of not having an independent foreign policy) isn't a perjorative for nothing.
I’m not claiming Finlandisation is morally desirable - it surely isn’t - however it did keep the peace in Europe and it allowed Finland to quietly prosper and move slowly west (eg into the EU)
We might have been better doing that than instantly absorbing all the Warsaw pact countries and the Baltics into NATO
Yes I know I’m a fucking Putinist appeaser etc
If Ukraine had been admitted into NATO before 2014 then the current war would never have happened. The problem is that the West was too timid, for fear of upsetting the Russians, and took the Russians at their word (plus also distracted by misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, the opportunity costs of which were immense).
Those were the mistakes. We should not repeat them.
Also worth pointing out that, until February 2022, I was firmly in the "be nice to Russia and they'll be nice back to us" school of thought, which turned out to be very wrong. I'm not claiming to be perfect, but I think I am sometimes able to learn from past mistakes.
NATO did take in the arsey Baltic states without much reflection on the long term consequences because that's what Albright wanted. She was concerned that if they were not in NATO then an EU security apparatus might form. Then, as now, NATO is 100% exclusively dedicated to US strategic objectives and they did not want to entertain any notion of a nascent European strategic autonomy.
Of course, now they rather wish that Europe could look after itself.
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
I thought the government's proposals were without merit but if they prevent anyone making another film as horrendous as Love Actually I may have to rethink that view.
@Leon, @Luckyguy1983 , thank you both for your replies (and your link[2] LuckyGuy). With respect to your point, I think Ukraine needs to have enough coastline to function, which I why recapturing Kherson Oblast (or at least the western bits) os a priority. But wanting a thing and getting a thing are two different things
Recall that for some months I have been dubious about the Ukraine counterattack south of Orikhiv, pointing out its slow progress. Being Supreme Commander of the PB Chairborne Division, I instead recommended trying to attack the Russian positions in the slopy rocky ground of the North-East (Kharkiv Oblast) and latterly the marshy ground of Western Kherson.
Unfortunately, I read a few days ago that they had abandoned the counterattack after four days, and had been trying various approaches. Attrition may still work but the recent decision by Putin to pour 177K[1] more soldiers into the cauldron increases the timeline considerably. Worse, my recommendation of tanks in Kharkiv has already been tried and is being defeated by Russian mass.
So my armchair generalship is running out of ideas...
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Putin was playing a game? You know, the sort of thing he's been doing for the last couple of decades?
Gorbachev and Putin made approaches to NATO to join. As many commentaries point out, NATO, fresh from its Cold War victory, said fuck off. As was famously said by some US General or other, don't worry we are going to be the world's policeman from now and we don't need any help from you.
Ah I see the 'nuance' that goes curiously missing when you're doing 'Israel Good, Palestine Bad' is back on display. Jolly good.
You misunderstand. As usual. You think this is a huge gotcha whereas it is someone, me, seeking to understand the causes of each conflict.
Understanding the causes of something doesn't mean sympathy or antipathy. It means understanding. I understand the Russia and NATO and Ukraine perspectives and I understand the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives. In fact even someone with as limited perspicacity as you could do this also. It is then a matter of assessing one's views on it all.
I could sit here and argue all day the Palestinian position, although I would struggle with some of their actions and responses to events, but I would make a fair fist of it.
I then can weigh up which position I agree with.
If you had the self-confidence in your own views you would understand what I mean. But you don't so you don't.
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
I thought the government's proposals were without merit but if they prevent anyone making another film as horrendous as Love Actually I may have to rethink that view.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
If they can get the work done in fewer hours then who cares? I've automated all the dashboards and models I'm responsible for and can spend the rest of the weekend enjoying PB/writing about mountains/doing research and my manager is perfectly happy (until the code breaks).
This attitude to public sector workers is perhaps why their productivity doesn't increase as fast at the private sector. They don't get pay rises when they come up with something innovative, and they don't get time off either. Excel 4ever.
If they can get the work done in fewer hours then there is clearly not a 39 or 37.5 hours a week job there which they are currently working on.
You think private sector workers get pay rises when they come up with something innovative. What a quaint notion.
The problem the union is actually trying to solve is a lack of workers willing to take the pay being offered at Defra and elsewhere (see for instance South Cambridgeshire council).
Reality is if the pay is crap the only way you could get people to accept the poor pay is to offer them something else - and a 4 day week does that - as you would see if you look at somewhere like Atom Bank
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
I thought the government's proposals were without merit but if they prevent anyone making another film as horrendous as Love Actually I may have to rethink that view.
I love that film.
It’s curate’s egg
Some great bits, some cringe
Notting Hill remains his meisterwerk. Charming and funny and genuinely moving
Really good rom coms are incredibly hard to do. Which is why everyone cherishes the few that truly work
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
I thought the government's proposals were without merit but if they prevent anyone making another film as horrendous as Love Actually I may have to rethink that view.
My wife and daughter went to see it yet again last night in Edinburgh with a live orchestra dealing with the musical parts. They have been doing this for several years. I went once and it was fine with the orchestra definitely adding to it. The Usher Hall in Edinburgh was packed. Tickets go each year within hours of them going on sale. Your view about the merits or otherwise of the film are not, it appears, widely shared.
I may also say that a few of my better off friends have houses in France where they spend significant parts of the year. None of them have suggested that there has been any change in their arrangements since Brexit.
Boy changes mind again and runs to station/airport to beg girl
Girl kicks him in nuts Girl says "Oh, Okay then" and happiness apparently happens
Should be a doddle for you to knock one out, then
I am great at writing papers, calculations, reports and analyses. I cannot write plot, characterisation, people to save my life. I'll save you the link.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
So overthrowing Allende was completely reasonable, understandable etc?
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
I thought the government's proposals were without merit but if they prevent anyone making another film as horrendous as Love Actually I may have to rethink that view.
I love that film.
Your taste in films as bad as your taste in shoes and prime ministers.
Good morning @Cyclefree. Thank you for the article: same review as usual. With regards to two of your points (one in the article, one in the comments) as follows:
i) Your Point 2 in the article You write that "The court stated that a person without a GRC, no matter how they identified or presented, remained a member of the sex they were born and had no prima facie right to use or access single sex spaces or services intended for the opposite sex". This point was brought up by @DavidL after the court decision. IIUC the court statement in question was part of the obiter dicta (persuasive) not the ratio decidendi (binding), and so is advisory not decisive. You know the difference between the two but for all those who don't, see[1]
ii) Your practical option of unisex toilets You write that "The practical answer is to use those loos which are effectively unisex ie a locked room with washbasin". Whilst an admirable solution, it has to be pointed out that the current Government is going out of its way to prevent those loos from existing, see[2]
Your point 1 is not I think quite right in this way. The ratio decidendi of the decision was that "sex" in the EA included legal sex as determined by a GRC under the GRA. If sex means legal sex not biological sex it necessarily follows that someone who does not have a GRC does not fall within that category and therefore under the other existing EA provisions does not have the rights associated with that category. The statement is a necessary legal consequence of the court's ruling. It is helpful to have it spelt out but it would remain the case even if nothing had been said. It is helpful because so many bad faith actors have sought to misrepresent the existing law.
On loos, the type I am thinking of are ones like at my local cafe - one closed room much like a bathroom at home. For use by staff and customers alike and because a closed room, there is no risk to anyone - other than people not cleaning the seats after use.
I don't believe these are being banned. But if they are a bloody stupid decision. There should be male / female / disabled and unisex spaces available in new buildings thus catering for everyone without upsetting anyone. How hard can this be?
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
That's all based on the assumption that the ex-Soviet States, and Eastern European nations, aren't "real" countries, but rather, their destiny is to be part of a Greater Russia.
I think that these peoples have very good reason to look West, rather than East.
I couldn't give a toss about Russia's neuroses. Sometimes, people have to act like adults.
Indeed. For some, denying Israel the right to exist is antisemitism, but denying Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania the right to exist is just sensible realpolitik. A glaring hypocrisy.
Refusing to commit resources to defend a country is not the same as denying its right to exist.
In practical terms, it would be. Had the Baltic States not been admitted to NATO, they would now have been reoccupied by Russia.
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
I thought the government's proposals were without merit but if they prevent anyone making another film as horrendous as Love Actually I may have to rethink that view.
My wife and daughter went to see it yet again last night in Edinburgh with a live orchestra dealing with the musical parts. They have been doing this for several years. I went once and it was fine with the orchestra definitely adding to it. The Usher Hall in Edinburgh was packed. Tickets go each year within hours of them going on sale. Your view about the merits or otherwise of the film are not, it appears, widely shared.
I may also say that a few of my better off friends have houses in France where they spend significant parts of the year. None of them have suggested that there has been any change in their arrangements since Brexit.
Your regular reminder that popular!=good. If you're telling me that Brexit hasn't inconvenienced wealthy Edinburgh lawyers with second homes I am unsurprised.
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
I thought the government's proposals were without merit but if they prevent anyone making another film as horrendous as Love Actually I may have to rethink that view.
I love that film.
I love it just for the idea of Hugh Grant as PM.
Hugh Grant is an Oxford educated Labour supporter, if he was Labour leader he might even win by a bigger margin than Starmer is likely to given he has rather more charisma
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Take Putin out of the picture for a moment and I think Leon’s argument, scraped as it is from oddballs like Brand’s echo chambers, has a lot of merit.
I’m all for self-determination but I’m enough of a realist to believe that NATO’s post-cold war actions contributed to a perceived threat inside Russia that itself enabled someone like Putin to take control.
Problem is it’s an argument about the past. We are where we are, and Putin is leader. In such a world I think we have enough evidence that any compromise will simply enable the next attack and, should Trump get elected, being part of NATO may not be the protection it seems.
So we’re in a bind, but do need to stand up to Putin’s aggression imo.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
The USSR putting nukes on Cuban soil of course led to the Cuban missile crisis (admittedly in response to the US doing the same in Turkey)
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
I thought the government's proposals were without merit but if they prevent anyone making another film as horrendous as Love Actually I may have to rethink that view.
I love that film.
It’s curate’s egg
Some great bits, some cringe
Notting Hill remains his meisterwerk. Charming and funny and genuinely moving
Really good rom coms are incredibly hard to do. Which is why everyone cherishes the few that truly work
It's crazy that someone who could make a film as great as Notting Hill could make one as bad as Love Actually. Although my theory is that it is the quality of the leads in NH that make it so good. There is still a whole lot of vile cringey Curtis bullshit in the writing but Grant and Roberts elevate it through sheer charisma and the quality of their acting.
Right, I've just been commissioned to write 4 - FOUR - articles relating to work stuff. @Leon eat your heart out etc.,. Nah, nah, nah....
No travel involved alas. Bastards.
Still - must be off to earn a vaguely honest crust.
BTW according to the Post Office's careers website, it is apparently recruiting for a Principal Software Development Engineer to deliver "the largest technical transformation project within Europe".
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
That's all based on the assumption that the ex-Soviet States, and Eastern European nations, aren't "real" countries, but rather, their destiny is to be part of a Greater Russia.
I think that these peoples have very good reason to look West, rather than East.
I couldn't give a toss about Russia's neuroses. Sometimes, people have to act like adults.
Russia's neuroses about the West are a lot less well-founded than the neuroses about Russia in, say, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova or Belarus. Or indeed the Baltic states. Or Eastern Europe.
Russia had an opportunity to turn west in 1991 through to the early 20th century. It tried, decided it wasn't being given the respect it deserved and reverted back to its time-worn role of extending its borders wherever possible. Could the west have done more? Maybe, especially under Yeltsin. But the FSB/KGB clique in power under Putin were always going to demand a Strong Russia approach. Which either the west accepted - implicitly or otherwise - so creating a sphere of influence for Russia and writing off the newly free peoples, or it accepted their right to self-determination. There is no middle way because either they're free to decide their own future or they're not. (An Austrian/Finnish solution only works to the extent that the country in question is satisfied with that status; imposing it externally reverts us back to the spheres-of-influence model).
'Denmark's parliament has banned the "inappropriate treatment" of religious texts - with a bill widely known in the country as the Quran law.
Offenders now face a fine or up to two years in jail after a 94-77 vote. It follows a series of burnings of Islam's holy book that led to uproar in Muslim countries.'
The government's attempt to toughen up immigration legislation for Xmas had one reader keen to figure out precisely how many storylines in 2003's Love Actually would become impossible under 2023's new proposals.
Their assessment:
* Thomas Brodie-Sangster: Love interest is the dependant child of a non-EU citizen
* Liam Neeson: Claudia Schiffer is a non-UK citizen, so would need to earn £38K+
* Kris Marshall: Fine to go to America on holiday; couldn't bring his nymphomaniac models back permanently
* Laura Linney: Glassdoor has the current average salary for a graphic designer as £37,154 – so she'd fall below the required earning threshold
* Colin Firth: Leaving aside the post-Brexit complications of keeping a holiday home in France, his Portuguese fiancée wouldn't get leave to remain - and he'd struggle to get all his Christmas presents back through customs too.
Bill Nighy's platonic porn-watching bromance, Emma Thompson's cheating husband and Keira Knightley's stalker would all be free to carry on, as would sex-scene stand-ins Martin Freeman and Joanne Page.
That just leaves the Prime Minister who shags his catering staff. Something the current regime would probably also tolerate.
The upside I suppose would be that Alan Rickman’s German Secretary wouldn’t be working there so Emma Thompson wouldn’t have to play that miserable Joni Mitchell music, Thomas Brodie- Sangster’s character wouldn’t have spent years in juvenile detention for endangering airport security and Colin Firth would never have to be crushed a year later when his annoying sister in law moves in with him and Aurelie and ruins their relationship.
And Claudia Schiffer will probably just pass the income threshold.
My Woke review of "Love Actually" is that it is not about love, but rather is deeply misogynistic. Each of the interlinked sub plots is a different variation on male fantasy.
Seducing the hired help, the compliant wife turning a blind eye to an office affair for the sake of the kids, seducing a different sort of hired help with the frisson of being foreign, that porn permits love, that even a plain bloke with an English accent is a babe magnet to nymphomaniacs in America, that learning to play music gets the girl of your dreams and even of latent homosexuality.
It is all delivered with charm but is deeply suspect when looked at in this light.
On a slightly related note, I was gob-smacked when I read the unabridged version of the Three Musketeers, a few years ago, to find out that D'Artagnan raped Milady de Winter (and thought it all a jolly jape).
That was omitted from the version I read at school, and it never made sense to me why Milady hated him so much.
Good morning @Cyclefree. Thank you for the article: same review as usual. With regards to two of your points (one in the article, one in the comments) as follows:
i) Your Point 2 in the article You write that "The court stated that a person without a GRC, no matter how they identified or presented, remained a member of the sex they were born and had no prima facie right to use or access single sex spaces or services intended for the opposite sex". This point was brought up by @DavidL after the court decision. IIUC the court statement in question was part of the obiter dicta (persuasive) not the ratio decidendi (binding), and so is advisory not decisive. You know the difference between the two but for all those who don't, see[1]
ii) Your practical option of unisex toilets You write that "The practical answer is to use those loos which are effectively unisex ie a locked room with washbasin". Whilst an admirable solution, it has to be pointed out that the current Government is going out of its way to prevent those loos from existing, see[2]
Your point 1 is not I think quite right in this way. The ratio decidendi of the decision was that "sex" in the EA included legal sex as determined by a GRC under the GRA. If sex means legal sex not biological sex it necessarily follows that someone who does not have a GRC does not fall within that category and therefore under the other existing EA provisions does not have the rights associated with that category. The statement is a necessary legal consequence of the court's ruling. It is helpful to have it spelt out but it would remain the case even if nothing had been said. It is helpful because so many bad faith actors have sought to misrepresent the existing law.
On loos, the type I am thinking of are ones like at my local cafe - one closed room much like a bathroom at home. For use by staff and customers alike and because a closed room, there is no risk to anyone - other than people not cleaning the seats after use.
I don't believe these are being banned. But if they are a bloody stupid decision. There should be male / female / disabled and unisex spaces available in new buildings thus catering for everyone without upsetting anyone. How hard can this be?
Reference 2 from @viewcode states that 'self-contained private toilets' are permitted:
All new public buildings will have to provide ‘separate male and female toilets’, or self-contained private toilets, while gender-neutral toilets with multiple cubicles will be banned.
I can imagine something similar happening behind closed doors in a Government Office somewhere, where they've been given an abstruse toilet ideology to be implemented in their design by non-Architects - and there is a standard based on this month's assessment of gender mixes which must be reflected in toilet proportions on a monthly bases.
BTW according to the Post Office's careers website, it is apparently recruiting for a Principal Software Development Engineer to deliver "the largest technical transformation project within Europe".
What could possibly go wrong?!?
Lots, of course, but hiring and retaining good in house experience is probably going to work out better than outsourcing it to some megafirm...
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Good morning @Cyclefree. Thank you for the article: same review as usual. With regards to two of your points (one in the article, one in the comments) as follows:
i) Your Point 2 in the article You write that "The court stated that a person without a GRC, no matter how they identified or presented, remained a member of the sex they were born and had no prima facie right to use or access single sex spaces or services intended for the opposite sex". This point was brought up by @DavidL after the court decision. IIUC the court statement in question was part of the obiter dicta (persuasive) not the ratio decidendi (binding), and so is advisory not decisive. You know the difference between the two but for all those who don't, see[1]
ii) Your practical option of unisex toilets You write that "The practical answer is to use those loos which are effectively unisex ie a locked room with washbasin". Whilst an admirable solution, it has to be pointed out that the current Government is going out of its way to prevent those loos from existing, see[2]
Your point 1 is not I think quite right in this way. The ratio decidendi of the decision was that "sex" in the EA included legal sex as determined by a GRC under the GRA. If sex means legal sex not biological sex it necessarily follows that someone who does not have a GRC does not fall within that category and therefore under the other existing EA provisions does not have the rights associated with that category. The statement is a necessary legal consequence of the court's ruling...
Not necessarily. The decision that "pets includes cats" does not logically imply that "pets does not include dogs". I assume that that's how it will shake out as cases progress, but technically it's not there yet.
BTW according to the Post Office's careers website, it is apparently recruiting for a Principal Software Development Engineer to deliver "the largest technical transformation project within Europe".
What could possibly go wrong?!?
Lots, of course, but hiring and retaining good in house experience is probably going to work out better than outsourcing it to some megafirm...
Depends if they'll offer enough to attract and retain anyone decent. They say the salary will be competitive, but don't want to put it out there publicly.
Good morning @Cyclefree. Thank you for the article: same review as usual. With regards to two of your points (one in the article, one in the comments) as follows:
i) Your Point 2 in the article You write that "The court stated that a person without a GRC, no matter how they identified or presented, remained a member of the sex they were born and had no prima facie right to use or access single sex spaces or services intended for the opposite sex". This point was brought up by @DavidL after the court decision. IIUC the court statement in question was part of the obiter dicta (persuasive) not the ratio decidendi (binding), and so is advisory not decisive. You know the difference between the two but for all those who don't, see[1]
ii) Your practical option of unisex toilets You write that "The practical answer is to use those loos which are effectively unisex ie a locked room with washbasin". Whilst an admirable solution, it has to be pointed out that the current Government is going out of its way to prevent those loos from existing, see[2]
Your point 1 is not I think quite right in this way. The ratio decidendi of the decision was that "sex" in the EA included legal sex as determined by a GRC under the GRA. If sex means legal sex not biological sex it necessarily follows that someone who does not have a GRC does not fall within that category and therefore under the other existing EA provisions does not have the rights associated with that category. The statement is a necessary legal consequence of the court's ruling. It is helpful to have it spelt out but it would remain the case even if nothing had been said. It is helpful because so many bad faith actors have sought to misrepresent the existing law.
On loos, the type I am thinking of are ones like at my local cafe - one closed room much like a bathroom at home. For use by staff and customers alike and because a closed room, there is no risk to anyone - other than people not cleaning the seats after use.
I don't believe these are being banned. But if they are a bloody stupid decision. There should be male / female / disabled and unisex spaces available in new buildings thus catering for everyone without upsetting anyone. How hard can this be?
Reference 2 from @viewcode states that 'self-contained private toilets' are permitted:
All new public buildings will have to provide ‘separate male and female toilets’, or self-contained private toilets, while gender-neutral toilets with multiple cubicles will be banned.
I can imagine something similar happening behind closed doors in a Government Office somewhere, where they've been given an abstruse toilet ideology to be implemented in their design by non-Architects - and there is a standard based on this month's assessment of gender mixes which must be reflected in toilet proportions on a monthly bases.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump is very misunderstood when it comes to his intent to use force overseas. He won't. He talks big but every time it came to it in 2017-21, he shied away. Partly that's an America First thing, where he sees no value to US interests in being involved in any action overseas unless the US is being handsomely paid for it, but mainly it's because he's scared of force and doesn't understand it.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
“Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”
How do you seek peace with an enemy who doesn't want peace?
I don't think you do "seek peace". But you allow intermediaries to explore possibilities, while maintaining an absolutist front. I doubt if Putin thinks total conquest of Ukraine is now either possible or desirable, but what do I know? Finding out what he'd accept and what he'd concede is sensible. Conversely the Russians need to know if it's worth even thinking about a ceasefire or Zelensky really will fight for the last inch of the Donbas. Ignorance on both sides is just unhelpful in considering options.
Nick, have you not been paying attention to what Russia has been saying - let alone doing?
But let me ask you a simple question: why do you evidently trust anything Russia, or Putin, says?
I don't. But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. For example, a conceivable deal would be a ceasefire on current lines and NATO troops guarding them as a permanent peacekeeping force. Eventually a deal could lead to recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea and Donbas and Ukrainian integration into NATO. There are loads of people on both sides who will say they'd never accept any of that, but it doesn't require trust (if we accept, as I think most people do, that Russia will not actually attack American troops and start WW3).
It's possible that either side (or both) are not up for any of that (yet). OK. But not allowing intermediaries to find out is a mistake, when the alternative is years of mass slaughter.
"But facts can be created on the ground to make a deal irreversible. "
We tried that before, with the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum and others. And they were not worth the paper they were written on. Putin knows that, and sees the west's weakness now. He'd also know that he stands a good chance of destroying NATO through political means - e.g. through Trump - and therefore he just needs to bide his time.
Remember you reaction to this war? That we 'poked' Russia into the invasion; that it was all 'our' fault? Putin will just rebuild his military, await a moment of weakness in the west, and generate excuses which many in the west - sadly probably including you - will suck up and regurgitate. Because it's our fault, and not Putin's evil.
Russia is currently a rogue nation. Your 'solution' above would in no way encourage them to change that status.
An Afghanistan-style failure might.
We did Poke the Bear
This does not exculpate Putin, but we did extend NATO right to the Russian border (in the Baltics) and we tried to bring Ukraine into the western orbit
Would the USA accept Mexico joining a Chinese military alliance?
Fuck off. We did not 'poke' the bear. Countries neighbouring Russia had a choice; we did not force them to join NATO. They looked at Russia's rhetoric and actions (e.g. Georgia), and decided they'd rather be in our club than theirs.
Which seems to have been a rather wise decision given events, doesn't it?
Russia is a fascist, imperialistic nation, which is keen to spread those (dis)values around the world - as long as it increases their power. I'd argue that the west - even with our problems - is a far better system than the one Putin (and China for that matter) want.
No, we Poked the Bear
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
And some people were wondering earlier how Holocaust Denial became a thing.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
We extended NATO right up to the Russian border - indeed we incorporated into NATO ex parts of the USSR - the Baltics
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
You make it sound like NATO invaded those countries. It did not; those (democratic) countries asked to join NATO.
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
And if Mexico asked to join a Chinese military alliance, would China be wise to say Yes, sure
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Good analogy, almost: Mexico is not bordering countries already in said putative Chinese military alliance.
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Of course America would intervene militarily if Mexico looked likely to join a Chinese military alliance. You don’t need a Trump for that, Biden would do it. Chinese troops and bases on the Texan border? Give over
Good morning @Cyclefree. Thank you for the article: same review as usual. With regards to two of your points (one in the article, one in the comments) as follows:
i) Your Point 2 in the article You write that "The court stated that a person without a GRC, no matter how they identified or presented, remained a member of the sex they were born and had no prima facie right to use or access single sex spaces or services intended for the opposite sex". This point was brought up by @DavidL after the court decision. IIUC the court statement in question was part of the obiter dicta (persuasive) not the ratio decidendi (binding), and so is advisory not decisive. You know the difference between the two but for all those who don't, see[1]
ii) Your practical option of unisex toilets You write that "The practical answer is to use those loos which are effectively unisex ie a locked room with washbasin". Whilst an admirable solution, it has to be pointed out that the current Government is going out of its way to prevent those loos from existing, see[2]
Your point 1 is not I think quite right in this way. The ratio decidendi of the decision was that "sex" in the EA included legal sex as determined by a GRC under the GRA. If sex means legal sex not biological sex it necessarily follows that someone who does not have a GRC does not fall within that category and therefore under the other existing EA provisions does not have the rights associated with that category. The statement is a necessary legal consequence of the court's ruling. It is helpful to have it spelt out but it would remain the case even if nothing had been said. It is helpful because so many bad faith actors have sought to misrepresent the existing law.
On loos, the type I am thinking of are ones like at my local cafe - one closed room much like a bathroom at home. For use by staff and customers alike and because a closed room, there is no risk to anyone - other than people not cleaning the seats after use.
I don't believe these are being banned. But if they are a bloody stupid decision. There should be male / female / disabled and unisex spaces available in new buildings thus catering for everyone without upsetting anyone. How hard can this be?
Reference 2 from @viewcode states that 'self-contained private toilets' are permitted:
All new public buildings will have to provide ‘separate male and female toilets’, or self-contained private toilets, while gender-neutral toilets with multiple cubicles will be banned.
I can imagine something similar happening behind closed doors in a Government Office somewhere, where they've been given an abstruse toilet ideology to be implemented in their design by non-Architects - and there is a standard based on this month's assessment of gender mixes which must be reflected in toilet proportions on a monthly bases.
I can see an upsurge in the use of the type of toilets with the whb integrated into the cistern, to save water, and to turn a normal sized cubicle into a "private toilet", so that the common area with washing facilities and hand dryers becomes a mere "lobby" - to make up the legally required numbers of loos. https://www.durovinbathrooms.com/rimless-close-coupled-toilet-pan-with-sink-179wb
Building Designers and clients will not want to lose a whole chunk of their expensive floorspace to serried ranks of private bathrooms.
Plus there could be interesting category dilemmas for whoever writes the words in the National Planning Policy Framework .
Comments
Despite having muscles, beards, being pumped full of testosterone, and sexually attracted to women.
Many so-called trans women claim to be "lesbians" after all.
(We await a similarly apt pejorative for those who would sue for peace)
It was foolish. This does not remotely exonerate Putin, but we should have been more alert to Russia’s neuroses, especially as it reeled from the humiliating break up of the USSR
Finland was neutral for a long long time. Because it kept the peace through delicate decades. It worked
“Chairborne Division” is, indeed, very good
You want to give in to fascistic evil. I'm unsurprised.
It is not my binary thinking or imposing a dynamic on the situation. A situation where everyone is even handed and on the one hand about it.
It is what we are seeing on the streets, in opinion polls, in phone ins from one segment of the left. Look at some of the pro-Palestinian marches and at the profile of the people attending. Relatively few look like they were born further south east than Maidstone. It is the framing of the issue by left wing activists that we are discussing which leads to anti-semitism for the reasons explained above.
Once the kids are settled in front of their x-boxes perhaps you can take the time to read what we have been saying.
i) Your Point 2 in the article
You write that "The court stated that a person without a GRC, no matter how they identified or presented, remained a member of the sex they were born and had no prima facie right to use or access single sex spaces or services intended for the opposite sex". This point was brought up by @DavidL after the court decision. IIUC the court statement in question was part of the obiter dicta (persuasive) not the ratio decidendi (binding), and so is advisory not decisive. You know the difference between the two but for all those who don't, see[1]
ii) Your practical option of unisex toilets
You write that "The practical answer is to use those loos which are effectively unisex ie a locked room with washbasin". Whilst an admirable solution, it has to be pointed out that the current Government is going out of its way to prevent those loos from existing, see[2]
Notes
Also wondering why we are obsessing about foreign intruders into the UK datasphere when we seem to have plenty opf homegrown saboteurs trying to return universities to the state of 200 years ago, when, for instance, Oxford was 50% Anglican seminary for trainee vicars and 50% learning the young gents to get pissed in a gentlemanlu manner withotu upsetting anyone more important than restaurant owners or local oiks. If the y.g. wrote a spot of poetry before leaving with a lower second in classics, or the t.v. did a spot of scholarship before moving to their nice rectory worth £200K pa in modern terms, that was merely a bonus.
Sure enough we found someone shortly after who spends too much time in the alt.right part of the internet, and comes out with an equally deluded spiel of falsehoods.
It's got be on the cards that the judge rules in the UK Government's favour though. The tide is going out against the SNP, Labour do have all the luck at the moment; it feels like to rule against would be gutsier than ruling in favour. So I don't think it'll happen.
That’s my one factual claim. Do point out how this is a “spiel of falsehoods”?
It is my opinion that this was a geopolitical mistake by NATO
As for your point about Finland: well, Finlandization (where a smaller country is dominated by a larger one to the point of not having an independent foreign policy) isn't a perjorative for nothing.
We might have been better doing that than instantly absorbing all the Warsaw pact countries and the Baltics into NATO
Yes I know I’m a fucking Putinist appeaser etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOTHJh7ixwA
If a peace therefore can absolutely hem Russia in by providing what's left of Ukraine with powerful security guarantees and a strong, capable military, as well as an EU membership pathway, the West can consider that a considerable win.
Both you and TOPPING fall into the trap of seeing binary thinking as a feature of woke, rather than a bug brought in by the ignorant.
Binary thinking happens on both sides, it is equally foolish. Don’t indulge it. It’s easy to escape whatever your biases eg I fundamentally disagree with Rochdale on Israel/Gaza but can recognise he is thinking and arguing in a nuanced, thoughtful, not binary way. I agree with that. Perhaps I’m just being idealistic but I think it is possible to share the proceeds of capitalism’s immense success more fairly without losing the benefits of it.
It is the particular brand of spiv shareholder capitalism that we have found ourselves in that is oppressive imo
"Let's Ride The Wuppertal Schwebebahn", Geoff Marshall, YouTube, Dec 5 2023, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPVSTQ2L230
Although he lacks the funds and searing ambition to do the ones in Japan. GO TO SHONAN, GEOFF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGLrP5eawdY
If they can get the work done in fewer hours then who cares? I've automated all the dashboards and models I'm responsible for and can spend the rest of the weekend enjoying PB/writing about mountains/doing research and my manager is perfectly happy (until the code breaks).
This attitude to public sector workers is perhaps why their productivity doesn't increase as fast at the private sector. They don't get pay rises when they come up with something innovative, and they don't get time off either. Excel 4ever.
I think that these peoples have very good reason to look West, rather than East.
I couldn't give a toss about Russia's neuroses. Sometimes, people have to act like adults.
We were too triumphant after the Fall of Communism
A more emollient attitude to Russia MIGHT have avoided some of the conflicts since. Especially this Ukrainian war
Heck. Maybe it wouldn’t? But the Chairborne Division of PB Army 9 is absolutely CERTAIN I’m wrong and sees everything as entirely black and white and won’t be happy til we’ve marched on Moscow. It’s quite childish, to my mind
You think private sector workers get pay rises when they come up with something innovative. What a quaint notion.
He saw the hand-wringing over Salisbury, MH17 and the "Red Line" in Syria and took up the slack.
A very different thing. Please stop putting words in my mouth
Also, citation needed for "many of whom can't get academic places post study now". I've never known a PhD student who wants to remain in academia struggle to get a post-doc position (this may be field-dependent, for sure). Some struggle to progress beyond that, but that's another issue - those strugglers would still, beyond immediate post-doc level, be competing with foreign academics as the pay would be above the threshold.
It's worth remembering that the protests and awful antisemitic behaviour attached to some of them started directly after 7 October - before Israel had responded at all. The willingness to try and deny or play down the crimes Hamas committed can't be blamed on objections to the Israeli government's response either.
Simply put, there are too many people on the left who long ago formed antisemitic or borderline views based on an incredibly simplistic view of the world, and they erupt whenever the conflict in Israel and Palestine does too. This time it's just been particularly egregious because of the seriousness of the humanitarian situation and the fact the horror that started the war as so indefensible, yet some still tried to defend or minimise it to justify their views.
There's certainly a sentiment in Israel that goes well beyond the right - in fact it may create more despair on the left and centre - that they have long ago been abandoned by progressives internationally and will be criticised and dehumanised by them whatever they do. It's not just Netanyahu and his goons with this view, but centrist, staunch supporters of peace deals like Yair Lapid - who has been completely scathing about part of the Western left's attitude and antisemitism before and since 7 October.
Those were the mistakes. We should not repeat them.
* "We'd be much wealthier if we regained these territories". Ignoring the obvious counter that those places are more developed because they aren't ruled by crooks.
Of course, now they rather wish that Europe could look after itself.
Recall that for some months I have been dubious about the Ukraine counterattack south of Orikhiv, pointing out its slow progress. Being Supreme Commander of the PB Chairborne Division, I instead recommended trying to attack the Russian positions in the slopy rocky ground of the North-East (Kharkiv Oblast) and latterly the marshy ground of Western Kherson.
Unfortunately, I read a few days ago that they had abandoned the counterattack after four days, and had been trying various approaches. Attrition may still work but the recent decision by Putin to pour 177K[1] more soldiers into the cauldron increases the timeline considerably. Worse, my recommendation of tanks in Kharkiv has already been tried and is being defeated by Russian mass.
So my armchair generalship is running out of ideas...
Notes
* [1] https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putin-orders-russian-military-add-170000-troops-total-105314951
* [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOTHJh7ixwA
You put far too much effort into making excuses for your hero Putin.
Understanding the causes of something doesn't mean sympathy or antipathy. It means understanding. I understand the Russia and NATO and Ukraine perspectives and I understand the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives. In fact even someone with as limited perspicacity as you could do this also. It is then a matter of assessing one's views on it all.
I could sit here and argue all day the Palestinian position, although I would struggle with some of their actions and responses to events, but I would make a fair fist of it.
I then can weigh up which position I agree with.
If you had the self-confidence in your own views you would understand what I mean. But you don't so you don't.
Or would a sane Chinese government think: hold on, this is deeply provocative, right on the American border, maybe Washington will react badly?
Reality is if the pay is crap the only way you could get people to accept the poor pay is to offer them something else - and a 4 day week does that - as you would see if you look at somewhere like Atom Bank
Some great bits, some cringe
Notting Hill remains his meisterwerk. Charming and funny and genuinely moving
Really good rom coms are incredibly hard to do. Which is why everyone cherishes the few that truly work
I may also say that a few of my better off friends have houses in France where they spend significant parts of the year. None of them have suggested that there has been any change in their arrangements since Brexit.
Girl kicks him in nutsGirl says "Oh, Okay then" and happiness apparently happensOn loos, the type I am thinking of are ones like at my local cafe - one closed room much like a bathroom at home. For use by staff and customers alike and because a closed room, there is no risk to anyone - other than people not cleaning the seats after use.
I don't believe these are being banned. But if they are a bloody stupid decision. There should be male / female / disabled and unisex spaces available in new buildings thus catering for everyone without upsetting anyone. How hard can this be?
If you're telling me that Brexit hasn't inconvenienced wealthy Edinburgh lawyers with second homes I am unsurprised.
I’m all for self-determination but I’m enough of a realist to believe that NATO’s post-cold war actions contributed to a perceived threat inside Russia that itself enabled someone like Putin to take control.
Problem is it’s an argument about the past. We are where we are, and Putin is leader. In such a world I think we have enough evidence that any compromise will simply enable the next attack and, should Trump get elected, being part of NATO may not be the protection it seems.
So we’re in a bind, but do need to stand up to Putin’s aggression imo.
No travel involved alas. Bastards.
Still - must be off to earn a vaguely honest crust.
BTW according to the Post Office's careers website, it is apparently recruiting for a Principal Software Development Engineer to deliver "the largest technical transformation project within Europe".
What could possibly go wrong?!?
Russia had an opportunity to turn west in 1991 through to the early 20th century. It tried, decided it wasn't being given the respect it deserved and reverted back to its time-worn role of extending its borders wherever possible. Could the west have done more? Maybe, especially under Yeltsin. But the FSB/KGB clique in power under Putin were always going to demand a Strong Russia approach. Which either the west accepted - implicitly or otherwise - so creating a sphere of influence for Russia and writing off the newly free peoples, or it accepted their right to self-determination. There is no middle way because either they're free to decide their own future or they're not. (An Austrian/Finnish solution only works to the extent that the country in question is satisfied with that status; imposing it externally reverts us back to the spheres-of-influence model).
Offenders now face a fine or up to two years in jail after a 94-77 vote. It follows a series of burnings of Islam's holy book that led to uproar in Muslim countries.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67651580
That was omitted from the version I read at school, and it never made sense to me why Milady hated him so much.
All new public buildings will have to provide ‘separate male and female toilets’, or self-contained private toilets, while gender-neutral toilets with multiple cubicles will be banned.
I'm reminded of Rowan Atkinson designing toilets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2b-wTJ8x3E
I can imagine something similar happening behind closed doors in a Government Office somewhere, where they've been given an abstruse toilet ideology to be implemented in their design by non-Architects - and there is a standard based on this month's assessment of gender mixes which must be reflected in toilet proportions on a monthly bases.
Great header, @Cyclefree .
But putting that to one side, if Mexico chose to join said Chinese military alliance the US would no doubt be deeply upset. But it wouldn't invade Mexico unless Trump (who's like a less capable Putin) were POTUS and even then it's extremely unlikely imo, since US public opinion wouldn't allow it. And US public opinion would be right of course.
Here's a better analogy to you 'poking the bear' excuse for Putin: wife goes out with friends against husband's wishes, husband beats wife to pulp. Was the wife as fault for poking her bear of a husband? Was she fuck.
Trump will happily launch trade wars and legal actions (where there's a court he accepts) because he (thinks he) understands trying to intimidate people with money and/or the law. He doesn't understand violence, knows this and fears his lack of understanding.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67658512
Claiming otherwise is the statement of an idiot
https://www.durovinbathrooms.com/rimless-close-coupled-toilet-pan-with-sink-179wb
Building Designers and clients will not want to lose a whole chunk of their expensive floorspace to serried ranks of private bathrooms.
Plus there could be interesting category dilemmas for whoever writes the words in the National Planning Policy Framework