We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens 6 SNP 4
And this is with a leader most people have never heard of, Richard Tice.
Yes but Reform will probably not stand in most seats, so will their erstwhile voters stay at home or go home to the Conservatives?
RefUK claim they will be standing in all seats. Whilst they (or the Brexit Party as they were then) made that claim in 2019, then stood down in most to facilitate a "Get Brexit Done" result, that isn't in their interests now. They are interested in taking over the Conservatives, not propping them up.
We shall see. I am sceptical RefUK has enough candidates to stand everywhere, even if a wealthy donor agrees to cover their deposits.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
OK so I looked at the links. I read one case and it was a 17 year old killed by the IDF. Awful. But the context was a battle with Palestinian militia.
Oh, that's fine then!
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
No its not fucking all right. That was not the point. The point is too many men with guns ON BOTH SIDES in a WAR ZONE. That's the context.
I never see any blame from you for Hamas, for Iran, for the Houthis. Why is that?
Because my tax money doesn't go towards funding the violence committed by Hamas, Iran or the Houthis - and it does actively go towards killing them and civilians near them. So where I have a political interest is in what I can impact and what I am culpable for.
I also did do the "condemn Hamas" dance after October 7th, but when I mentioned that maybe there is a political reason a militant group exists in an area that has been occupied for the past almost 80 years beyond just antisemitism, that turned into me apparently supporting Hamas - so I have no desire to get into that again. Indeed, in this very conversation me pointing to one act that a group has done has been turned into me supporting stoning gay people (which would be difficult because I don't know how I would go about throwing stones at myself - I guess I could ask some of my previous partners to do it whilst I do it to them? And most of the queer people I know have their own dealers, so I can't help get them stoned that way).
Does terrorism work? Its hard not to look at the IRA and think that in some ways they were successful, but ulttimately their aim of united Ireland has not yet been achieved. And in the end they had to sit down and talk.
Its times for those in the ME to grow up, but too many don't want to. They still think their preferred outcomes are possible, and that includes for too many of them a world without Israel and a world were being gay does indeed get you stoned to death and not with cannabis.
I think things we call terrorism can achieve political aims, of course. Indian independence was partly won through mass violence and "Nehru's army". Hell, American independence was gained via protest (that the UK would have labelled terrorism if that had been in the political lexicon of the time) and then a literal war of independence. What some people call terrorism, others will call freedom fighters (although this is not in any way me saying that I think all and any terrorists are freedom fighters, or that every act of people who I could consider freedom fighters is therefore completely justifiable).
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
Some miles should reasonably be more expensive than others, because those routes have higher demand, but otherwise that would seem eminently sensible.
One site, from 6500 years ago, with 24 skeletons in a fairly unique location - up in the Andes - does not prove "Early human hunter-gatherers ate mostly plants and vegetables"
How can a self respecting science journalist write this drivel? Is it Woke nonsense, or is she just stupid?
There could be any number of reasons why this one unusual site produces 24 skeletons of people who liked carrots. I mean, they are half way up a fucking mountain, maybe there wasn't that much meat. So they ate leaves
Have they considered that?
Absolutely laughable
Two sites, actually. And they merely say 'it suggests', not 'proves'.
As they point out, firm evidence for the actual balance of human diet going back that far is scant.
One thing it does show pretty conclusively is the power of the headline over the rest of the text.
To quote someone wittier than myself "there aren't any cave paintings of salads".
Unlike the buffalo hunt, the carrot hunt was to exhausting to draw .
In the UK at least, there *are* quite a lot of animal bones at prehistoric sites. But there are a heck of a lot more roasted hazelnut shells. Most prehistoric communities were also littoral - and there's evidence for a lot of shellfish in the diet (again more in the "gather" than the "hunter" end of things).
Archaeology is woke now. Facts are woke.
In fairness, I think the article is a quite horrible misrepresentation of the actual findings and conclusions, which look sound enough to me (fwiw I have a BSc and MA in archaeology, albeit a long time ago now), by (being generous to the journo here) implying that the findings apply to hunter gatherers in general, which they do not.
There is a general point about misrepresentation of the adaptability and variety of hunter-gatherer lifestyles, which as @mwadams here illustrates will reflect the environment. Thus in an environment where edible, nutritious plant life is abundant it may well be the major part of the diet. In other places - the most obvious example being extremely cold environments - animals will be the staple. And it is true that the 'man the hunter, woman the gatherer' trope is (to be extremely generous now) fairly tenuously evidenced and certainly not a universal (and by implication, innate) trait.
One of the keys to the success and dominance of humans isn't just intelligence, it's the versatility too. We can live pretty much purely on plants, or purely on animals.
There was also a swipe at the “male dominated archeology community” creating a “macho” image of cavemen
Apparently they were all sitting in reconciliation circles and singing kum-bi-ya instead
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
OK so I looked at the links. I read one case and it was a 17 year old killed by the IDF. Awful. But the context was a battle with Palestinian militia.
Oh, that's fine then!
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
No its not fucking all right. That was not the point. The point is too many men with guns ON BOTH SIDES in a WAR ZONE. That's the context.
I never see any blame from you for Hamas, for Iran, for the Houthis. Why is that?
Because my tax money doesn't go towards funding the violence committed by Hamas, Iran or the Houthis - and it does actively go towards killing them and civilians near them. So where I have a political interest is in what I can impact and what I am culpable for.
I also did do the "condemn Hamas" dance after October 7th, but when I mentioned that maybe there is a political reason a militant group exists in an area that has been occupied for the past almost 80 years beyond just antisemitism, that turned into me apparently supporting Hamas - so I have no desire to get into that again. Indeed, in this very conversation me pointing to one act that a group has done has been turned into me supporting stoning gay people (which would be difficult because I don't know how I would go about throwing stones at myself - I guess I could ask some of my previous partners to do it whilst I do it to them? And most of the queer people I know have their own dealers, so I can't help get them stoned that way).
Does terrorism work? Its hard not to look at the IRA and think that in some ways they were successful, but ulttimately their aim of united Ireland has not yet been achieved. And in the end they had to sit down and talk.
Its times for those in the ME to grow up, but too many don't want to. They still think their preferred outcomes are possible, and that includes for too many of them a world without Israel and a world were being gay does indeed get you stoned to death and not with cannabis.
I think things we call terrorism can achieve political aims, of course. Indian independence was partly won through mass violence and "Nehru's army". Hell, American independence was gained via protest (that the UK would have labelled terrorism if that had been in the political lexicon of the time) and then a literal war of independence. What some people call terrorism, others will call freedom fighters (although this is not in any way me saying that I think all and any terrorists are freedom fighters, or that every act of people who I could consider freedom fighters is therefore completely justifiable).
And do you agree with my second paragraph? About the need for realism to enter the debate and mindset of all in the ME?
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens 6 SNP 4
And this is with a leader most people have never heard of, Richard Tice.
Yes but Reform will probably not stand in most seats, so will their erstwhile voters stay at home or go home to the Conservatives?
RefUK claim they will be standing in all seats. Whilst they (or the Brexit Party as they were then) made that claim in 2019, then stood down in most to facilitate a "Get Brexit Done" result, that isn't in their interests now. They are interested in taking over the Conservatives, not propping them up.
I find Tice to be a curious enigma of a politician- to the limited extent that he actually is one. He is very low energy and unambitious with zero appetite to get any attention for himself or the party. Farage would be a far better leader and could presumably depose Tice in a heartbeat. There is something a bit fishy about the setup of the Fukkers that we are not being told.
Having said that I sincerely wish them well in their mission to destroy the tories.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
The uninsurability is a combination of car and driver. A bunch of professional tea leaves cracked the security system a couple of years back, and they can be opened and started with a device that looks like a phone but is actually an RF transceiver. You have to block it in with another car, if you don’t want it stolen.
The bifold doors are a tell tale for the rantalong nature of the piece - those were 'aspirational' up to about perhaps 2005; since then anyone who wants something that is practical (Clarkson's fabled architects in a Saab?) goes for lift-and-slide 3G doors, which don't deteriorate in performance.
On LRs/RRs, I normally encounter them whilst I am walking around town when people have driven them into, then out of the other side of, a marked parallel parking bay, blocking the footway to leave them room to get out on the driver's side and protect their wingmirror, whilst placing more vulnerable pedestrians in danger without thought.
For a symbol of the sleb LR lifestyle, I'd give you Katie Price, and her 10 year spree of criminal offences - and not having a real prison sentence or a lifetime driving ban yet. That's a different strata from the drug-dealers in second-hand LRs/RRs (or Audis-BMWs these days), or the wide-boy-on-the-pull demographic (see Park Royal 110mph crash incident).
I'll stick with my Skoda, and what looks to be cheaper insurance this year.
I don't especially mind when these idiots win the Darwin Award; I do mind when they put others in danger or hurt / kill.
Enough - crew cabs and Yank-o-trucks are for another day .
Just walking through a supermarket car park once a week finds any number of cars with scraped doors or dented wings from low-speed collisions. Cars are getting wider and roads and parking spaces are not.
Everyone driving in towns should get a Kia Ray EV when it's sold in the UK. Width under 1.6m
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
One site, from 6500 years ago, with 24 skeletons in a fairly unique location - up in the Andes - does not prove "Early human hunter-gatherers ate mostly plants and vegetables"
How can a self respecting science journalist write this drivel? Is it Woke nonsense, or is she just stupid?
There could be any number of reasons why this one unusual site produces 24 skeletons of people who liked carrots. I mean, they are half way up a fucking mountain, maybe there wasn't that much meat. So they ate leaves
Have they considered that?
Absolutely laughable
Two sites, actually. And they merely say 'it suggests', not 'proves'.
As they point out, firm evidence for the actual balance of human diet going back that far is scant.
One thing it does show pretty conclusively is the power of the headline over the rest of the text.
To quote someone wittier than myself "there aren't any cave paintings of salads".
Unlike the buffalo hunt, the carrot hunt was to exhausting to draw .
In the UK at least, there *are* quite a lot of animal bones at prehistoric sites. But there are a heck of a lot more roasted hazelnut shells. Most prehistoric communities were also littoral - and there's evidence for a lot of shellfish in the diet (again more in the "gather" than the "hunter" end of things).
Archaeology is woke now. Facts are woke.
In fairness, I think the article is a quite horrible misrepresentation of the actual findings and conclusions, which look sound enough to me (fwiw I have a BSc and MA in archaeology, albeit a long time ago now), by (being generous to the journo here) implying that the findings apply to hunter gatherers in general, which they do not.
There is a general point about misrepresentation of the adaptability and variety of hunter-gatherer lifestyles, which as @mwadams here illustrates will reflect the environment. Thus in an environment where edible, nutritious plant life is abundant it may well be the major part of the diet. In other places - the most obvious example being extremely cold environments - animals will be the staple. And it is true that the 'man the hunter, woman the gatherer' trope is (to be extremely generous now) fairly tenuously evidenced and certainly not a universal (and by implication, innate) trait.
One of the keys to the success and dominance of humans isn't just intelligence, it's the versatility too. We can live pretty much purely on plants, or purely on animals.
The hunter gatherer civilisation of the Tas Tepeler (Gobekli Tepe etc) seems, from what we have learmed so far, to be extremely macho, phallocratic, dominated by male values, and also obsessed with hunting, and prey animals, and la chasse. Also there is evidence of brutal human sacrifice
It is quite contrary to the idea we all lived on gathered mushrooms and wild roots worshipped a nice mother Goddess, and did peaceful knitting in harmony with nature absent any conflict, which I am sure the Guardian would like us to believe
Yes. But that is one society, in one place, over one period. It is foolish to take any single example of the enormous variety of human cultures and say that it is somehow the ur-culture from which everything else is a deviation.
Sure, but the Tas Tepeler must represent a large "civilisation" of thousands of hunter gatherers over many centuries, as against 24 skeletons up a hill in Peru
I know which is more important evidence
The most interesting thing about Gobekli Tepe - and other neolithic cultures, the early Jomon in Japan from the top of my head is a good example - is how it demonstrates that the development of agriculture and secondary products revolution are not necessary for a vibrant, cohesive culture over a large scale that can be seen in evidence from its material remains.
Fitting ancient civilisations into today's culture wars is a little tiresome from whichever angle it is approached.
Interesting but I somewhat demur
The Tas Tepeler are so strange and jarring and wondrous they don’t fit any accepted narrative (let alone some narrow culture wars angle)
An entirely buried civilisation, 12,000 years old at least, apparently able to build a network of cultic villages/towns with temples and shrines and auditoriums out of exquisitely carved stone - far beyond anything at Stonehenge (7000 years later
They had elaborate rituals and certain clothing and astronomical knowledge and ability to pipe water - and on and on. It gets weirder every year
Who were they?? Where did they go? Did they really do all that without writing and agriculture?
Seems impossible. It is a magnificent mystery which baffles everyone - and I think this is why it is still weirdly overlooked - why you can still meet educated people who’ve never even heard of Gobekli Tepe. It’s so bewildering and so confounding for most paleo-human timelines it is easier to ignore it
Another interesting question, if the Tories merge with Reform, is whether there are enough more moderate Tory MP's left for the Parliamentary party to split, or whether a new party will simply emerge, separately.
There are very large gaps opening up on the Centre-Right, and Left, of British politics.
There aren't enough Remainer, One Nation Tory MPs to make up a new party that can win seats under FPTP, at most they would go LD.
The Tories would only likely merge with Reform, Canada style, if Reform overtook them on seats and votes.
Under PR of course the Tories and Reform could stay separate parties but form coalition governments together
Interesting post by @HYUFD and @WhisperingOracle. Personally I think under PR the breakups would eventually be more dramatic. I think there would be on the right a Centre Right party, a more far right party and a libertarian type party. On the left I would expect a Social Democratic party and a Socialist party. On neither the left or the right I would expect a liberal party (but leaning right) and a green party (but leaning left).
I would expect the Social democratic party and the Centre Right party to be the main parties with a swing to the far right party occasionally. I think the potential coalitions are obvious but with the occasional surprises. I suspect the far right would not be included in most coalitions unless other parties had to and the liberals could go into the coalition with either side of the right left spectrum. Obvious combinations are:
Socialist/Social Democrat/Green Social Democrat/Centre Right/Liberal Centre Right/Liberal/Libertarian
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
Some miles should reasonably be more expensive than others, because those routes have higher demand, but otherwise that would seem eminently sensible.
You should always be offered the cheapest ticket or combination of tickets for the journey you are making, taking account of the degree of flexibility desired by the passenger.
Missing out on a cheap split because you've booked with one web site rather than another should not happen.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
The uninsurability is a combination of car and driver. A bunch of professional tea leaves cracked the security system a couple of years back, and they can be opened and started with a device that looks like a phone but is actually an RF transceiver. You have to block it in with another car, if you don’t want it stolen.
The bifold doors are a tell tale for the rantalong nature of the piece - those were 'aspirational' up to about perhaps 2005; since then anyone who wants something that is practical (Clarkson's fabled architects in a Saab?) goes for lift-and-slide 3G doors, which don't deteriorate in performance.
On LRs/RRs, I normally encounter them whilst I am walking around town when people have driven them into, then out of the other side of, a marked parallel parking bay, blocking the footway to leave them room to get out on the driver's side and protect their wingmirror, whilst placing more vulnerable pedestrians in danger without thought.
For a symbol of the sleb LR lifestyle, I'd give you Katie Price, and her 10 year spree of criminal offences - and not having a real prison sentence or a lifetime driving ban yet. That's a different strata from the drug-dealers in second-hand LRs/RRs (or Audis-BMWs these days), or the wide-boy-on-the-pull demographic (see Park Royal 110mph crash incident).
I'll stick with my Skoda, and what looks to be cheaper insurance this year.
I don't especially mind when these idiots win the Darwin Award; I do mind when they put others in danger or hurt / kill.
Enough - crew cabs and Yank-o-trucks are for another day .
Just walking through a supermarket car park once a week finds any number of cars with scraped doors or dented wings from low-speed collisions. Cars are getting wider and roads and parking spaces are not.
Everyone driving in towns should get a Kia Ray EV when it's sold in the UK. Width under 1.6m
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens 6 SNP 4
And this is with a leader most people have never heard of, Richard Tice.
Yes but Reform will probably not stand in most seats, so will their erstwhile voters stay at home or go home to the Conservatives?
RefUK claim they will be standing in all seats. Whilst they (or the Brexit Party as they were then) made that claim in 2019, then stood down in most to facilitate a "Get Brexit Done" result, that isn't in their interests now. They are interested in taking over the Conservatives, not propping them up.
I find Tice to be a curious enigma of a politician- to the limited extent that he actually is one. He is very low energy and unambitious with zero appetite to get any attention for himself or the party. Farage would be a far better leader and could presumably depose Tice in a heartbeat. There is something a bit fishy about the setup of the Fukkers that we are not being told.
Having said that I sincerely wish them well in their mission to destroy the tories.
Be careful what you wish for. The split in the various Rights has gone on for over a decade and they still may split and recombine like the Canadian conservatives did.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
The uninsurability is a combination of car and driver. A bunch of professional tea leaves cracked the security system a couple of years back, and they can be opened and started with a device that looks like a phone but is actually an RF transceiver. You have to block it in with another car, if you don’t want it stolen.
The bifold doors are a tell tale for the rantalong nature of the piece - those were 'aspirational' up to about perhaps 2005; since then anyone who wants something that is practical (Clarkson's fabled architects in a Saab?) goes for lift-and-slide 3G doors, which don't deteriorate in performance.
On LRs/RRs, I normally encounter them whilst I am walking around town when people have driven them into, then out of the other side of, a marked parallel parking bay, blocking the footway to leave them room to get out on the driver's side and protect their wingmirror, whilst placing more vulnerable pedestrians in danger without thought.
For a symbol of the sleb LR lifestyle, I'd give you Katie Price, and her 10 year spree of criminal offences - and not having a real prison sentence or a lifetime driving ban yet. That's a different strata from the drug-dealers in second-hand LRs/RRs (or Audis-BMWs these days), or the wide-boy-on-the-pull demographic (see Park Royal 110mph crash incident).
I'll stick with my Skoda, and what looks to be cheaper insurance this year.
I don't especially mind when these idiots win the Darwin Award; I do mind when they put others in danger or hurt / kill.
Enough - crew cabs and Yank-o-trucks are for another day .
Just walking through a supermarket car park once a week finds any number of cars with scraped doors or dented wings from low-speed collisions. Cars are getting wider and roads and parking spaces are not.
My current Aussie car is a smashed up MG3 with the world's worst automatic gearbox, no traction in the wet and half a wallaby stuck somewhere under the bonnet.
I've had an enormous amount of fun squeezing into spaces next to pristine overhanging Ford Rangers.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
OK so I looked at the links. I read one case and it was a 17 year old killed by the IDF. Awful. But the context was a battle with Palestinian militia.
Oh, that's fine then!
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
No its not fucking all right. That was not the point. The point is too many men with guns ON BOTH SIDES in a WAR ZONE. That's the context.
I never see any blame from you for Hamas, for Iran, for the Houthis. Why is that?
Because my tax money doesn't go towards funding the violence committed by Hamas, Iran or the Houthis - and it does actively go towards killing them and civilians near them. So where I have a political interest is in what I can impact and what I am culpable for.
I also did do the "condemn Hamas" dance after October 7th, but when I mentioned that maybe there is a political reason a militant group exists in an area that has been occupied for the past almost 80 years beyond just antisemitism, that turned into me apparently supporting Hamas - so I have no desire to get into that again. Indeed, in this very conversation me pointing to one act that a group has done has been turned into me supporting stoning gay people (which would be difficult because I don't know how I would go about throwing stones at myself - I guess I could ask some of my previous partners to do it whilst I do it to them? And most of the queer people I know have their own dealers, so I can't help get them stoned that way).
Does terrorism work? Its hard not to look at the IRA and think that in some ways they were successful, but ulttimately their aim of united Ireland has not yet been achieved. And in the end they had to sit down and talk.
Its times for those in the ME to grow up, but too many don't want to. They still think their preferred outcomes are possible, and that includes for too many of them a world without Israel and a world were being gay does indeed get you stoned to death and not with cannabis.
I think things we call terrorism can achieve political aims, of course. Indian independence was partly won through mass violence and "Nehru's army". Hell, American independence was gained via protest (that the UK would have labelled terrorism if that had been in the political lexicon of the time) and then a literal war of independence. What some people call terrorism, others will call freedom fighters (although this is not in any way me saying that I think all and any terrorists are freedom fighters, or that every act of people who I could consider freedom fighters is therefore completely justifiable).
And do you agree with my second paragraph? About the need for realism to enter the debate and mindset of all in the ME?
I mean it depends on what you mean by "realism". Would I like Middle Eastern states to be less homophobic and less anti-Semitic; of course. If that means accepting the existence of Israel as it currently runs itself - as an apartheid regime that kills hundreds and thousands of civilians every year, and desires to be an ethnostate - then no.
Doesn't Israel have to be realistic and accept that there is no route to peace, with Palestinians or other Middle Eastern nations, without an intergrated society and a right to return for Palestinians who have been displaced - both now but also during the Nakba?
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
The polling is stand for nothing fall for nothing stuff: no-one knows what the Tories stand for so their vote is haemorrhaging in every direction. On top of that (but also driven partly by it) you have a revulsion at their behaviour and desire to kick them out, which means the same questions do not apply to Labour, for example.
Sunak's main failing as a leader has been a failure to article the "why?". A good enough "why" can mitigate against behaviour and lead to clothes-peg-on-nose voting (e.g. Trump) but since he doesn't - although seems mystified as to why his confusing mix of extra maths, canning HS2 and no more fags didn’t do it - there's absolutely nothing propping it up.
It would only be worth changing leader if another could do much better than this, and save seats, even a Hague 2001 play might be better than this now, but such a candidate doesn't exist.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
Are you not conflating ethnic cleansing and genocide here ?
Ethnic cleansing doesn't have a legal definition and is typically considered as part of other distinct war crimes or as part of genocide:
The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”
In this instance I would argue the forced removal of people from their land comes under parts b and c of the convention, and if I remember correctly that was part of the argument made to the ICJ and is typically how the concept of ethnic cleansing is incorporated into the legal definition of genocide.
Another interesting question, if the Tories merge with Reform, is whether there are enough more moderate Tory MP's left for the Parliamentary party to split, or whether a new party will simply emerge, separately.
There are very large gaps opening up on the Centre-Right, and Left, of British politics.
There aren't enough Remainer, One Nation Tory MPs to make up a new party that can win seats under FPTP, at most they would go LD.
The Tories would only likely merge with Reform, Canada style, if Reform overtook them on seats and votes.
Under PR of course the Tories and Reform could stay separate parties but form coalition governments together
Interesting post by @HYUFD and @WhisperingOracle. Personally I think under PR the breakups would eventually be more dramatic. I think there would be on the right a Centre Right party, a more far right party and a libertarian type party. On the left I would expect a Social Democratic party and a Socialist party. On neither the left or the right I would expect a liberal party (but leaning right) and a green party (but leaning left).
I would expect the Social democratic party and the Centre Right party to be the main parties with a swing to the far right party occasionally. I think the potential coalitions are obvious but with the occasional surprises. I suspect the far right would not be included in most coalitions unless other parties had to and the liberals could go into the coalition with either side of the right left spectrum. Obvious combinations are:
Socialist/Social Democrat/Green Social Democrat/Centre Right/Liberal Centre Right/Liberal/Libertarian
I agree with those, except for adding just a final one that might be missing in any new, post-PR landscape.
Far-Right/Libertarian. Anti-Vaxxers meet UKippers, which has already happened, and also as elswehere in the world political landcape.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
which is the evil gun, and why?
The second one is just a modified handgun, no? I assume it's got to do with the reloading mechanism, bolt action and what not? I remember listening to some left wing pro gun people discuss the stupidity of some of the federal and state laws around the types of gun or gun mods you can have...
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
The uninsurability is a combination of car and driver. A bunch of professional tea leaves cracked the security system a couple of years back, and they can be opened and started with a device that looks like a phone but is actually an RF transceiver. You have to block it in with another car, if you don’t want it stolen.
The bifold doors are a tell tale for the rantalong nature of the piece - those were 'aspirational' up to about perhaps 2005; since then anyone who wants something that is practical (Clarkson's fabled architects in a Saab?) goes for lift-and-slide 3G doors, which don't deteriorate in performance.
On LRs/RRs, I normally encounter them whilst I am walking around town when people have driven them into, then out of the other side of, a marked parallel parking bay, blocking the footway to leave them room to get out on the driver's side and protect their wingmirror, whilst placing more vulnerable pedestrians in danger without thought.
For a symbol of the sleb LR lifestyle, I'd give you Katie Price, and her 10 year spree of criminal offences - and not having a real prison sentence or a lifetime driving ban yet. That's a different strata from the drug-dealers in second-hand LRs/RRs (or Audis-BMWs these days), or the wide-boy-on-the-pull demographic (see Park Royal 110mph crash incident).
I'll stick with my Skoda, and what looks to be cheaper insurance this year.
I don't especially mind when these idiots win the Darwin Award; I do mind when they put others in danger or hurt / kill.
Enough - crew cabs and Yank-o-trucks are for another day .
Just walking through a supermarket car park once a week finds any number of cars with scraped doors or dented wings from low-speed collisions. Cars are getting wider and roads and parking spaces are not.
Everyone driving in towns should get a Kia Ray EV when it's sold in the UK. Width under 1.6m
No RHD Ray EVs...
With it being so tall and narrow, I'm not sure that matters.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
Are you not conflating ethnic cleansing and genocide here ?
Ethnic cleansing doesn't have a legal definition and is typically considered as part of other distinct war crimes or as part of genocide:
The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”
In this instance I would argue the forced removal of people from their land comes under parts b and c of the convention, and if I remember correctly that was part of the argument made to the ICJ and is typically how the concept of ethnic cleansing is incorporated into the legal definition of genocide.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
OK so I looked at the links. I read one case and it was a 17 year old killed by the IDF. Awful. But the context was a battle with Palestinian militia.
Oh, that's fine then!
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
No its not fucking all right. That was not the point. The point is too many men with guns ON BOTH SIDES in a WAR ZONE. That's the context.
I never see any blame from you for Hamas, for Iran, for the Houthis. Why is that?
Because my tax money doesn't go towards funding the violence committed by Hamas, Iran or the Houthis - and it does actively go towards killing them and civilians near them. So where I have a political interest is in what I can impact and what I am culpable for.
I also did do the "condemn Hamas" dance after October 7th, but when I mentioned that maybe there is a political reason a militant group exists in an area that has been occupied for the past almost 80 years beyond just antisemitism, that turned into me apparently supporting Hamas - so I have no desire to get into that again. Indeed, in this very conversation me pointing to one act that a group has done has been turned into me supporting stoning gay people (which would be difficult because I don't know how I would go about throwing stones at myself - I guess I could ask some of my previous partners to do it whilst I do it to them? And most of the queer people I know have their own dealers, so I can't help get them stoned that way).
Does terrorism work? Its hard not to look at the IRA and think that in some ways they were successful, but ulttimately their aim of united Ireland has not yet been achieved. And in the end they had to sit down and talk.
Its times for those in the ME to grow up, but too many don't want to. They still think their preferred outcomes are possible, and that includes for too many of them a world without Israel and a world were being gay does indeed get you stoned to death and not with cannabis.
I think things we call terrorism can achieve political aims, of course. Indian independence was partly won through mass violence and "Nehru's army". Hell, American independence was gained via protest (that the UK would have labelled terrorism if that had been in the political lexicon of the time) and then a literal war of independence. What some people call terrorism, others will call freedom fighters (although this is not in any way me saying that I think all and any terrorists are freedom fighters, or that every act of people who I could consider freedom fighters is therefore completely justifiable).
And do you agree with my second paragraph? About the need for realism to enter the debate and mindset of all in the ME?
I mean it depends on what you mean by "realism". Would I like Middle Eastern states to be less homophobic and less anti-Semitic; of course. If that means accepting the existence of Israel as it currently runs itself - as an apartheid regime that kills hundreds and thousands of civilians every year, and desires to be an ethnostate - then no.
Doesn't Israel have to be realistic and accept that there is no route to peace, with Palestinians or other Middle Eastern nations, without an intergrated society and a right to return for Palestinians who have been displaced - both now but also during the Nakba?
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
Are you not conflating ethnic cleansing and genocide here ?
Ethnic cleansing doesn't have a legal definition and is typically considered as part of other distinct war crimes or as part of genocide:
The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”
In this instance I would argue the forced removal of people from their land comes under parts b and c of the convention, and if I remember correctly that was part of the argument made to the ICJ and is typically how the concept of ethnic cleansing is incorporated into the legal definition of genocide.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
OK so I looked at the links. I read one case and it was a 17 year old killed by the IDF. Awful. But the context was a battle with Palestinian militia.
Oh, that's fine then!
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
No its not fucking all right. That was not the point. The point is too many men with guns ON BOTH SIDES in a WAR ZONE. That's the context.
I never see any blame from you for Hamas, for Iran, for the Houthis. Why is that?
Because my tax money doesn't go towards funding the violence committed by Hamas, Iran or the Houthis - and it does actively go towards killing them and civilians near them. So where I have a political interest is in what I can impact and what I am culpable for.
I also did do the "condemn Hamas" dance after October 7th, but when I mentioned that maybe there is a political reason a militant group exists in an area that has been occupied for the past almost 80 years beyond just antisemitism, that turned into me apparently supporting Hamas - so I have no desire to get into that again. Indeed, in this very conversation me pointing to one act that a group has done has been turned into me supporting stoning gay people (which would be difficult because I don't know how I would go about throwing stones at myself - I guess I could ask some of my previous partners to do it whilst I do it to them? And most of the queer people I know have their own dealers, so I can't help get them stoned that way).
Does terrorism work? Its hard not to look at the IRA and think that in some ways they were successful, but ulttimately their aim of united Ireland has not yet been achieved. And in the end they had to sit down and talk.
Its times for those in the ME to grow up, but too many don't want to. They still think their preferred outcomes are possible, and that includes for too many of them a world without Israel and a world were being gay does indeed get you stoned to death and not with cannabis.
I think things we call terrorism can achieve political aims, of course. Indian independence was partly won through mass violence and "Nehru's army". Hell, American independence was gained via protest (that the UK would have labelled terrorism if that had been in the political lexicon of the time) and then a literal war of independence. What some people call terrorism, others will call freedom fighters (although this is not in any way me saying that I think all and any terrorists are freedom fighters, or that every act of people who I could consider freedom fighters is therefore completely justifiable).
Based on the Northern Ireland experience, it would take the extremists on each side to agree not to be provoked by the extremists on the other side. As it is, whenever a deal looks likely, a well-placed bullet (or rocket) can trigger a new cycle of violence and an end to talks.
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
which is the evil gun, and why?
The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in the US extended from 1994 to 2004 (it had a preset sunset clause that was not extended). During this period American arms manufacturers undertook progidies of workarounds to avoid the definition. Here is an example of a gun that was redesigned to avoid the ban, resulting in a distinct appearance.
Likely the only way to do that is via an openSAFELY type model, where you build code on dummy data, then submit it to be run on the real data, but never see the data themselves.
Devilishly difficult to prevent re-identification in record level data otherwise. You can try tricks such as perturbing the data so that e.g. dates don't match up, but that can have consequences for analysis - say you randomly add/subtract a number between 1 and 10 to the admission date, that screws any day of the week pattern analysis.
I work with record level data and would easily be able to find* my own admissions and those of my family etc - if I knew where, age, sex, admission and discharge dates that would probably be enough. I don't, of course (and could face severe penalties if I did) but anyway I wouldn't be able to do that for some random person. Could, potentially, for a neighbour etc if I was nosey and knew admission/discharge dates etc. But any insurer with information on admissions, or Google and co with location tracking etc and it could be fairly trivial. So then you have to rely on legal penalties, but you also need to catch people.
*I'd first have to obtain the data - I have to justify the inclusion criteria, so I'd be unlikely to get blanket all admissions to go fishing. I did once get all admissions for children in a six year age group England, but had a very good reason for that (all population comparisons) and that went under a lot of scrutiny - had to show there was no other way.
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens 6 SNP 4
And this is with a leader most people have never heard of, Richard Tice.
Yes but Reform will probably not stand in most seats, so will their erstwhile voters stay at home or go home to the Conservatives?
RefUK claim they will be standing in all seats. Whilst they (or the Brexit Party as they were then) made that claim in 2019, then stood down in most to facilitate a "Get Brexit Done" result, that isn't in their interests now. They are interested in taking over the Conservatives, not propping them up.
I find Tice to be a curious enigma of a politician- to the limited extent that he actually is one. He is very low energy and unambitious with zero appetite to get any attention for himself or the party. Farage would be a far better leader and could presumably depose Tice in a heartbeat. There is something a bit fishy about the setup of the Fukkers that we are not being told.
Having said that I sincerely wish them well in their mission to destroy the tories.
The Tories are doing that all on their own. They do not need Reform for that,
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
Are you not conflating ethnic cleansing and genocide here ?
Ethnic cleansing doesn't have a legal definition and is typically considered as part of other distinct war crimes or as part of genocide:
The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”
In this instance I would argue the forced removal of people from their land comes under parts b and c of the convention, and if I remember correctly that was part of the argument made to the ICJ and is typically how the concept of ethnic cleansing is incorporated into the legal definition of genocide.
I mean under the legal definition - potentially (looking at the citations some scholars have called it such, with most just calling it an ethnic cleansing [which again, doesn't have a legal definition]). I think I agree with the Polish position, though - that it would be better to have had those people naturalise rather than forced out of the land. Indeed, the aim of "ethnically homogenous states" is bad, imho. If these were instead settlers - for example if Nazi Germany had relocated German citizens to hold land they had taken from other people they had exterminated - I think removing those people would be a reasonable response; but this just seems to have been a desire to fix borders around ethnic groups after a war for a group of people whose borders had changed a lot over the previous couple of hundred years.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
OK so I looked at the links. I read one case and it was a 17 year old killed by the IDF. Awful. But the context was a battle with Palestinian militia.
Oh, that's fine then!
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
No its not fucking all right. That was not the point. The point is too many men with guns ON BOTH SIDES in a WAR ZONE. That's the context.
I never see any blame from you for Hamas, for Iran, for the Houthis. Why is that?
Because my tax money doesn't go towards funding the violence committed by Hamas, Iran or the Houthis - and it does actively go towards killing them and civilians near them. So where I have a political interest is in what I can impact and what I am culpable for.
I also did do the "condemn Hamas" dance after October 7th, but when I mentioned that maybe there is a political reason a militant group exists in an area that has been occupied for the past almost 80 years beyond just antisemitism, that turned into me apparently supporting Hamas - so I have no desire to get into that again. Indeed, in this very conversation me pointing to one act that a group has done has been turned into me supporting stoning gay people (which would be difficult because I don't know how I would go about throwing stones at myself - I guess I could ask some of my previous partners to do it whilst I do it to them? And most of the queer people I know have their own dealers, so I can't help get them stoned that way).
Does terrorism work? Its hard not to look at the IRA and think that in some ways they were successful, but ulttimately their aim of united Ireland has not yet been achieved. And in the end they had to sit down and talk.
Its times for those in the ME to grow up, but too many don't want to. They still think their preferred outcomes are possible, and that includes for too many of them a world without Israel and a world were being gay does indeed get you stoned to death and not with cannabis.
I think things we call terrorism can achieve political aims, of course. Indian independence was partly won through mass violence and "Nehru's army". Hell, American independence was gained via protest (that the UK would have labelled terrorism if that had been in the political lexicon of the time) and then a literal war of independence. What some people call terrorism, others will call freedom fighters (although this is not in any way me saying that I think all and any terrorists are freedom fighters, or that every act of people who I could consider freedom fighters is therefore completely justifiable).
And do you agree with my second paragraph? About the need for realism to enter the debate and mindset of all in the ME?
I mean it depends on what you mean by "realism". Would I like Middle Eastern states to be less homophobic and less anti-Semitic; of course. If that means accepting the existence of Israel as it currently runs itself - as an apartheid regime that kills hundreds and thousands of civilians every year, and desires to be an ethnostate - then no.
Doesn't Israel have to be realistic and accept that there is no route to peace, with Palestinians or other Middle Eastern nations, without an intergrated society and a right to return for Palestinians who have been displaced - both now but also during the Nakba?
That's a very odd formulation. You're evelating a rejection of the state of Israel above all else, including your own self-interest and your own values. You've allowed yourself to be co-opted into somebody else's power struggle.
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
which is the evil gun, and why?
The second one is just a modified handgun, no? I assume it's got to do with the reloading mechanism, bolt action and what not? I remember listening to some left wing pro gun people discuss the stupidity of some of the federal and state laws around the types of gun or gun mods you can have...
Nope - they are both semi-automatic rifles.
The evil one (under several US laws) is the top one (The M1 with the wooden furniture). Because it has a lug for mounting a bayonet.
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens SNP 4
NPXMP is right. If Farage or Boris assume the leadership of REFUK, they could easily overtake the Tories
It's certainly an interesting question.
Almost everyone you talk to (who is paying any sort of attention, which is increasingly most) is in desperation about this government. About half are now willing to vote Labour to get rid of it.
But there's a decent sized pool of people who, however angry they are with the Tories, will never vote Labour. This is a pool the LibDems are fishing in, although many of these voters will simply stay at home.
There's also a decent sized pool of people who, however angry they are with the Tories, would not vote for a 'lefty' party of any sort. That's the pool that Reform is fishing in.
If the remaining voters mostly stay at home, the Tories are fishing in a puddle of die hard Conservatives. The question is how much less than their current 20% rating is the floor?
That depends on how credible an alternative there is on the right-of-centre.
In the 2019 Euros, the Conservatives finished fifth, with a single-digit share of the vote.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
So I drive.
Same. Last year I was working in a medium sized regional town, I had the option of a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, at least a 10 minute wait for the bus (sometimes 20 - they rarely ran to time), a 10 minute journey (thanks to bus lanes), then another 25 minute walk to work (or a 20 min wait for another bus to do a second 10 min journey as no connections). Total time: 50-60 mins.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens 6 SNP 4
And this is with a leader most people have never heard of, Richard Tice.
Yes but Reform will probably not stand in most seats, so will their erstwhile voters stay at home or go home to the Conservatives?
Disagree. I don't see why with that kind of vote share they don't put up candidates almost everywhere, certainly in England and Wales. They did in 2015.
Of course, they have to start backing these numbers up in real votes. Hello Wellingborough and Kingswood, where in both cases, Reform have reasonably high-profile (for them) candidates.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I sold my car last year. I still occasionally miss it, but not because I regret selling it, the logic of getting rid of it was indisputable. I was using it twice a month, and paying hundreds a month to keep it
I miss it because it was a fun fast car with a splendid blue-to-black roof (a Mini JCW) and getting in it was always fun
More to the point, how is the PB Weightwatchers Club?
I just got on the scales. 86kg! I have lost almost 12kg. A large chunk of me is missing. I don't think I will hit my target weight by Feb 8 as I hoped, but it is still coming down, and I should get there in Feb some time. It feels good; I definitely feel healthier
Fucking boring tho. Dieting and lots of sober days. YAWN
Likely the only way to do that is via an openSAFELY type model, where you build code on dummy data, then submit it to be run on the real data, but never see the data themselves.
Devilishly difficult to prevent re-identification in record level data otherwise. You can try tricks such as perturbing the data so that e.g. dates don't match up, but that can have consequences for analysis - say you randomly add/subtract a number between 1 and 10 to the admission date, that screws any day of the week pattern analysis.
I work with record level data and would easily be able to find* my own admissions and those of my family etc - if I knew where, age, sex, admission and discharge dates that would probably be enough. I don't, of course (and could face severe penalties if I did) but anyway I wouldn't be able to do that for some random person. Could, potentially, for a neighbour etc if I was nosey and knew admission/discharge dates etc. But any insurer with information on admissions, or Google and co with location tracking etc and it could be fairly trivial. So then you have to rely on legal penalties, but you also need to catch people.
*I'd first have to obtain the data - I have to justify the inclusion criteria, so I'd be unlikely to get blanket all admissions to go fishing. I did once get all admissions for children in a six year age group England, but had a very good reason for that (all population comparisons) and that went under a lot of scrutiny - had to show there was no other way.
Indeed. I've seen some rather interesting demos of taking multiple commercially available datasets and aggregating them. The result is de-annonimsation to a startling degree.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
So I drive.
Same. Last year I was working in a medium sized regional town, I had the option of a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, at least a 10 minute wait for the bus (sometimes 20 - they rarely ran to time), a 10 minute journey (thanks to bus lanes), then another 25 minute walk to work (or a 20 min wait for another bus to do a second 10 min journey as no connections). Total time: 50-60 mins.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Also: audiobooks make driving much more tolerable
You can lose yourself in a good book, the miles slip by
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
So I drive.
Same. Last year I was working in a medium sized regional town, I had the option of a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, at least a 10 minute wait for the bus (sometimes 20 - they rarely ran to time), a 10 minute journey (thanks to bus lanes), then another 25 minute walk to work (or a 20 min wait for another bus to do a second 10 min journey as no connections). Total time: 50-60 mins.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Also: audiobooks make driving much more tolerable
You can lose yourself in a good book, the miles slip by
Podcast for me. The drive is an excellent time to devote to myself.
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens 6 SNP 4
This poll is terrible for the LibDems. There is quite a lot of talk about The LDs picking up 20-30 seats in south England due to the slump in the Tory vote. This poll suggests that (net) zero dissilusioned tories are considering voting LD.
A short report from Channel 5 news about Operation SNAP (road crime reports via video uploads) in the Mercia Police Force. Blind bends are a theme of the examples.
One stat I had not picked up on before - 20% of drivers now run dashcams, which is where most reports come from.
I'm not sure of the 33516 reports in 2023 (that feels low to me - the London number alone was 15k+ in 2022), with 70% action taken (warning letter / educational course / FPN/ court summons).
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
It seems like people on long distance journeys are effectively subsidising those doing small journeys on the same line, maybe because they think long journeys are more likely to be businesspeople on expenses so they can get away with the higher fares.
Here are the splits for this journey, (it's changed very slightly since earlier)
Another interesting question, if the Tories merge with Reform, is whether there are enough more moderate Tory MP's left for the Parliamentary party to split, or whether a new party will simply emerge, separately.
There are very large gaps opening up on the Centre-Right, and Left, of British politics.
There aren't enough Remainer, One Nation Tory MPs to make up a new party that can win seats under FPTP, at most they would go LD.
The Tories would only likely merge with Reform, Canada style, if Reform overtook them on seats and votes.
Under PR of course the Tories and Reform could stay separate parties but form coalition governments together
Interesting post by @HYUFD and @WhisperingOracle. Personally I think under PR the breakups would eventually be more dramatic. I think there would be on the right a Centre Right party, a more far right party and a libertarian type party. On the left I would expect a Social Democratic party and a Socialist party. On neither the left or the right I would expect a liberal party (but leaning right) and a green party (but leaning left).
I would expect the Social democratic party and the Centre Right party to be the main parties with a swing to the far right party occasionally. I think the potential coalitions are obvious but with the occasional surprises. I suspect the far right would not be included in most coalitions unless other parties had to and the liberals could go into the coalition with either side of the right left spectrum. Obvious combinations are:
Socialist/Social Democrat/Green Social Democrat/Centre Right/Liberal Centre Right/Liberal/Libertarian
I agree with those, except for adding just a final one that might be missing in any new, post-PR landscape.
Far-Right/Libertarian. Anti-Vaxxers meet UKippers, which has already happened, and also as elswehere in the world political landcape.
I think the big missing piece is regionalist parties. Not SNP and Plaid - they would of course be there, as might one or two other Scottish parties - but parties representing regions of England too.
Most countries have a vote share hurdle for a party to enter parliament, of say 4 or 5%, but the UK couldn’t do that because of the impact on existing outfits like Plaid or the NI parties. So that opens the door for Mebyon Kernow and the Yorkshire party.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I sold my car last year. I still occasionally miss it, but not because I regret selling it, the logic of getting rid of it was indisputable. I was using it twice a month, and paying hundreds a month to keep it
I miss it because it was a fun fast car with a splendid blue-to-black roof (a Mini JCW) and getting in it was always fun
More to the point, how is the PB Weightwatchers Club?
I just got on the scales. 86kg! I have lost almost 12kg. A large chunk of me is missing. I don't think I will hit my target weight by Feb 8 as I hoped, but it is still coming down, and I should get there in Feb some time. It feels good; I definitely feel healthier
Fucking boring tho. Dieting and lots of sober days. YAWN
Heh, I started on 86kg, but for reference I was about 70kg pre-Lockdown blues. Imagine a stick thin guy but with massive jowly puffy face and enormous sticky out beer belly if you want to know what I looked like in december. Honestly, I looked like I was pregnant.
Currently on 81kg. 4 of those were lost in the first couple of weeks, but only 1kg down since then (last 2 weeks).
I'm putting this down to a) water weight loss from stopping drinking and b) it was much easier to fast/restrict calories while I was burning off sugar accumulated from alcohol. Much harder to go a day without eating now I don't have those sugar reserves.
Big question is will the diet last past Dry January. I'm aware my relationship with alcohol became pretty unhealthy during lockdown, but also, everything in my social life revolves around drinking.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
So I drive.
Same. Last year I was working in a medium sized regional town, I had the option of a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, at least a 10 minute wait for the bus (sometimes 20 - they rarely ran to time), a 10 minute journey (thanks to bus lanes), then another 25 minute walk to work (or a 20 min wait for another bus to do a second 10 min journey as no connections). Total time: 50-60 mins.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Also: audiobooks make driving much more tolerable
You can lose yourself in a good book, the miles slip by
There are four metrics of transport choice: - Cost - Convenience - Speed / time - Pleasantness.
For short-to-medium distance journeys, the car will generally win on most, if not all, of them. Trips to city centres may be an exception though even then, convenience and pleasantness can often outweigh cost and/or time.
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
which is the evil gun, and why?
The second one is just a modified handgun, no? I assume it's got to do with the reloading mechanism, bolt action and what not? I remember listening to some left wing pro gun people discuss the stupidity of some of the federal and state laws around the types of gun or gun mods you can have...
If I am correct (I may not be), the top gun is a M1 Garand, a WWII USA long rifle (it's the one that goes "ping" in Band of Brothers), and the bottom one is a (clone of a) Knights Armament SR-635 PDW.
The top one has a barrel over a certain length and a stock, which means it falls into a certain category from the POV of US legislation. It is the Good Gun.
The bottom one has a barrel under a certain length and an arm strap. The latter is meant to provide support for disabled shooters but because it can be used as a stock it is used to work around legislation, and is so the source of some debate. It is the Bad Gun
A PDW is a personal defence weapon, a shorter and smaller civilian derivative (see also carbines) of the longer military guns issued to frontline soldiers. Staff in the rear (cooks, guards, generals) or in confined spaces (pilots, tankers) often have carbine versions due to less need and smaller space, and PDW (personal defense weapons) are the civilianised versions. Fans of "Stargate" will recall the FN P90 which used it
The SR-635 depicted here appears to have the fire control mechanism of an AR15 but without the follower nor the deflector, a Picatinny rail to which a scope can be fitted, the arm strap as discussed, and the bit at the front that points downwards is meant to prevent you moving your hand too far forward and shooting your fingers off.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
So I drive.
Same. Last year I was working in a medium sized regional town, I had the option of a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, at least a 10 minute wait for the bus (sometimes 20 - they rarely ran to time), a 10 minute journey (thanks to bus lanes), then another 25 minute walk to work (or a 20 min wait for another bus to do a second 10 min journey as no connections). Total time: 50-60 mins.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Also: audiobooks make driving much more tolerable
You can lose yourself in a good book, the miles slip by
Podcast for me. The drive is an excellent time to devote to myself.
Yes, them too
I am kinda annoyed at myself for not realising the joys of audibooks and podcasts before. They are a godsend for boring hours when you have to use your hands and/or eyes but your ears are free - driving especially, but also household chores etc
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens 6 SNP 4
This poll is terrible for the LibDems. There is quite a lot of talk about The LDs picking up 20-30 seats in south England due to the slump in the Tory vote. This poll suggests that (net) zero dissilusioned tories are considering voting LD.
The 8% is no change from the previous poll. Ref is +1. You Gov consistently has the lowest Tory share and highest Labour share, with mediocre Lib Dem numbers.
It feels a bit Labour heavy and very Ref heavy. Recent council by-election results suggest the Lib Dems continuing to do pretty well.
You wonder if Reform really start getting more media attention and Farage leads it, whether we might end up in a Canada 1992 scenario when the election comes.
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
which is the evil gun, and why?
The second one is just a modified handgun, no? I assume it's got to do with the reloading mechanism, bolt action and what not? I remember listening to some left wing pro gun people discuss the stupidity of some of the federal and state laws around the types of gun or gun mods you can have...
If I am correct (I may not be), the top gun is a M1 Garand, a WWII USA long rifle (it's the one that goes "ping" in Band of Brothers), and the bottom one is a (clone of a) Knights Armament SR-635 PDW.
The top one has a barrel over a certain length and a stock, which means it falls into a certain category from the POV of US legislation. It is the Good Gun.
The bottom one has a barrel under a certain length and an arm strap. The latter is meant to provide support for disabled shooters but because it can be used as a stock it is used to work around legislation, and is so the source of some debate. It is the Bad Gun
A PDW is a personal defence weapon, a shorter and smaller civilian derivative (see also carbines) of the longer military guns issued to frontline soldiers. Staff in the rear (cooks, guards, generals) or in confined spaces (pilots, tankers) often have carbine versions due to less need and smaller space, and PDW (personal defense weapons) are the civilianised versions. Fans of "Stargate" will recall the FN P90 which used it
The SR-635 depicted here appears to have the fire control mechanism of an AR15 but without the follower nor the deflector, a Picatinny rail to which a scope can be fitted, the arm strap as discussed, and the bit at the front that points downwards is meant to prevent you moving your hand too far forward and shooting your fingers off.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Another interesting question, if the Tories merge with Reform, is whether there are enough more moderate Tory MP's left for the Parliamentary party to split, or whether a new party will simply emerge, separately.
There are very large gaps opening up on the Centre-Right, and Left, of British politics.
There aren't enough Remainer, One Nation Tory MPs to make up a new party that can win seats under FPTP, at most they would go LD.
The Tories would only likely merge with Reform, Canada style, if Reform overtook them on seats and votes.
Under PR of course the Tories and Reform could stay separate parties but form coalition governments together
Interesting post by @HYUFD and @WhisperingOracle. Personally I think under PR the breakups would eventually be more dramatic. I think there would be on the right a Centre Right party, a more far right party and a libertarian type party. On the left I would expect a Social Democratic party and a Socialist party. On neither the left or the right I would expect a liberal party (but leaning right) and a green party (but leaning left).
I would expect the Social democratic party and the Centre Right party to be the main parties with a swing to the far right party occasionally. I think the potential coalitions are obvious but with the occasional surprises. I suspect the far right would not be included in most coalitions unless other parties had to and the liberals could go into the coalition with either side of the right left spectrum. Obvious combinations are:
Socialist/Social Democrat/Green Social Democrat/Centre Right/Liberal Centre Right/Liberal/Libertarian
I agree with those, except for adding just a final one that might be missing in any new, post-PR landscape.
Far-Right/Libertarian. Anti-Vaxxers meet UKippers, which has already happened, and also as elswehere in the world political landcape.
I think the big missing piece is regionalist parties. Not SNP and Plaid - they would of course be there, as might one or two other Scottish parties - but parties representing regions of England too.
Most countries have a vote share hurdle for a party to enter parliament, of say 4 or 5%, but the UK couldn’t do that because of the impact on existing outfits like Plaid or the NI parties. So that opens the door for Mebyon Kernow and the Yorkshire party.
Well the UK could have eg a 5% hurdle in at least one of England, Scotland, Wales, NI.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I sold my car last year. I still occasionally miss it, but not because I regret selling it, the logic of getting rid of it was indisputable. I was using it twice a month, and paying hundreds a month to keep it
I miss it because it was a fun fast car with a splendid blue-to-black roof (a Mini JCW) and getting in it was always fun
More to the point, how is the PB Weightwatchers Club?
I just got on the scales. 86kg! I have lost almost 12kg. A large chunk of me is missing. I don't think I will hit my target weight by Feb 8 as I hoped, but it is still coming down, and I should get there in Feb some time. It feels good; I definitely feel healthier
Fucking boring tho. Dieting and lots of sober days. YAWN
Heh, I started on 86kg, but for reference I was about 70kg pre-Lockdown blues. Imagine a stick thin guy but with massive jowly puffy face and enormous sticky out beer belly if you want to know what I looked like in december. Honestly, I looked like I was pregnant.
Currently on 81kg. 4 of those were lost in the first couple of weeks, but only 1kg down since then (last 2 weeks).
I'm putting this down to a) water weight loss from stopping drinking and b) it was much easier to fast/restrict calories while I was burning off sugar accumulated from alcohol. Much harder to go a day without eating now I don't have those sugar reserves.
Big question is will the diet last past Dry January. I'm aware my relationship with alcohol became pretty unhealthy during lockdown, but also, everything in my social life revolves around drinking.
Hideous photos of oneself when horribly fat are a big motivator. I have found one of me in late November last year, Peak Porkiness. My head is the size of a planetoid and I am so grossly fat I have really noticeable MOOBS. Jeez. And the weird thing is, at the time I thought I was looking OK. The power of denial, eh
I hear you on the booze, but I have had to slow down or I will keel over. I started with cutting out the drinking of red wine first thing in the morning. I reckon, in retrospect, that wasn't entirely healthy. Then I turned on lunchtime boozing. Now I am restricting my days of boozing alone at home, in the evening (which is a shame, as I love a nice bottle of red, on my own, watching Netflix)
I still drink quite a lot by any standards - and hope to continue - but it is less than half what it was
I find fasting much easier than not drinking, dunno why. I can go days without food and its fine
You wonder if Reform really start getting more media attention and Farage leads it, whether we might end up in a Canada 1992 scenario when the election comes.
Imagine the panic it would cause for Labour if Reform got some momentum and they suddenly found themselves on the back foot in an entirely different set of marginals.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
So I drive.
Same. Last year I was working in a medium sized regional town, I had the option of a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, at least a 10 minute wait for the bus (sometimes 20 - they rarely ran to time), a 10 minute journey (thanks to bus lanes), then another 25 minute walk to work (or a 20 min wait for another bus to do a second 10 min journey as no connections). Total time: 50-60 mins.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Also: audiobooks make driving much more tolerable
You can lose yourself in a good book, the miles slip by
Podcast for me. The drive is an excellent time to devote to myself.
UK rail tickets, as part of capacity vs revenue optimisation reflect demand more closely, but also follow a policy of a greater cost contribution from the traveller.
I think rail tickets will be up for reform - on occasion I have had up to 20 separate credit-card sized pieces of card in my hand without split-tickets, and I am familiar with people having 50 or 60 for a single journey if eg they are taking a child and both having cycles.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
If I was PM this would be my first priority. I cannot believe that it is STILL possible to do this. Its a bloody joke.
Wasn't there also a case where you could get a cheaper ticket to a station beyond your destination, but if you go off early you were in trouble? I seem to recall a case of that.
We have similar - if you book from Ryde pier to Waterloo, which involves a boat and then a train, it almost always costs more than if you book from one of the island stations - even Shanklin at the other end of the line, and then take the same boat and train. Because you're skipping the early part of the journey (assuming you are in Ryde to begin with), they wouldn't know for the later stages that you haven't made the first part.
I assume the logic is that most of the people booking from the pier to London are visitors - i.e. tourists - whereas people booking further along the line are mostly locals (with some tourists). And it's an attempt at price discrimination between the two.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
So I drive.
Same. Last year I was working in a medium sized regional town, I had the option of a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, at least a 10 minute wait for the bus (sometimes 20 - they rarely ran to time), a 10 minute journey (thanks to bus lanes), then another 25 minute walk to work (or a 20 min wait for another bus to do a second 10 min journey as no connections). Total time: 50-60 mins.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Also: audiobooks make driving much more tolerable
You can lose yourself in a good book, the miles slip by
Podcast for me. The drive is an excellent time to devote to myself.
Yes, them too
I am kinda annoyed at myself for not realising the joys of audibooks and podcasts before. They are a godsend for boring hours when you have to use your hands and/or eyes but your ears are free - driving especially, but also household chores etc
Great for weight training too. Gym workouts are incredibly boring, and music doesn't seem to help much. But, out of desperation, I too have become a recent convert to podcasts. Now I find myself actually looking forward to a workout so I can listen to the next episode.
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens SNP 4
NPXMP is right. If Farage or Boris assume the leadership of REFUK, they could easily overtake the Tories
It's certainly an interesting question.
Almost everyone you talk to (who is paying any sort of attention, which is increasingly most) is in desperation about this government. About half are now willing to vote Labour to get rid of it.
But there's a decent sized pool of people who, however angry they are with the Tories, will never vote Labour. This is a pool the LibDems are fishing in, although many of these voters will simply stay at home.
There's also a decent sized pool of people who, however angry they are with the Tories, would not vote for a 'lefty' party of any sort. That's the pool that Reform is fishing in.
If the remaining voters mostly stay at home, the Tories are fishing in a puddle of die hard Conservatives. The question is how much less than their current 20% rating is the floor?
That depends on how credible an alternative there is on the right-of-centre.
In the 2019 Euros, the Conservatives finished fifth, with a single-digit share of the vote.
Yes, but the abstention rate was a lot higher then, whereas in a GE a lot of voters - especially older, small-c conservative ones - feel that voting in a GE is a duty.
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
which is the evil gun, and why?
The second one is just a modified handgun, no? I assume it's got to do with the reloading mechanism, bolt action and what not? I remember listening to some left wing pro gun people discuss the stupidity of some of the federal and state laws around the types of gun or gun mods you can have...
If I am correct (I may not be), the top gun is a M1 Garand, a WWII USA long rifle (it's the one that goes "ping" in Band of Brothers), and the bottom one is a (clone of a) Knights Armament SR-635 PDW.
The top one has a barrel over a certain length and a stock, which means it falls into a certain category from the POV of US legislation. It is the Good Gun.
The bottom one has a barrel under a certain length and an arm strap. The latter is meant to provide support for disabled shooters but because it can be used as a stock it is used to work around legislation, and is so the source of some debate. It is the Bad Gun
A PDW is a personal defence weapon, a shorter and smaller civilian derivative (see also carbines) of the longer military guns issued to frontline soldiers. Staff in the rear (cooks, guards, generals) or in confined spaces (pilots, tankers) often have carbine versions due to less need and smaller space, and PDW (personal defense weapons) are the civilianised versions. Fans of "Stargate" will recall the FN P90 which used it
The SR-635 depicted here appears to have the fire control mechanism of an AR15 but without the follower nor the deflector, a Picatinny rail to which a scope can be fitted, the arm strap as discussed, and the bit at the front that points downwards is meant to prevent you moving your hand too far forward and shooting your fingers off.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
You don't get to be right by simply repeating an assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary. 148grss's graph clearly shows that that Houthi action only started having a significant impact on shipping a few weeks ago. While they may have been making a nuisance of themselves before then, that clearly wasn't on anything like the scale of the current attacks.
That graph only goes back to June 2020. They've been doing this since 2016.
The thing is, @148grss is trying to say the ship attacks - and the aim to close the Red Sea - are because of Israeli actions. I'm saying that's wrong, because of the precedents. You should be asking why Iran wants to close the Red Sea (again) - and it won't be anything to do with Israel.
Another interesting question, if the Tories merge with Reform, is whether there are enough more moderate Tory MP's left for the Parliamentary party to split, or whether a new party will simply emerge, separately.
There are very large gaps opening up on the Centre-Right, and Left, of British politics.
There aren't enough Remainer, One Nation Tory MPs to make up a new party that can win seats under FPTP, at most they would go LD.
The Tories would only likely merge with Reform, Canada style, if Reform overtook them on seats and votes.
Under PR of course the Tories and Reform could stay separate parties but form coalition governments together
Interesting post by @HYUFD and @WhisperingOracle. Personally I think under PR the breakups would eventually be more dramatic. I think there would be on the right a Centre Right party, a more far right party and a libertarian type party. On the left I would expect a Social Democratic party and a Socialist party. On neither the left or the right I would expect a liberal party (but leaning right) and a green party (but leaning left).
I would expect the Social democratic party and the Centre Right party to be the main parties with a swing to the far right party occasionally. I think the potential coalitions are obvious but with the occasional surprises. I suspect the far right would not be included in most coalitions unless other parties had to and the liberals could go into the coalition with either side of the right left spectrum. Obvious combinations are:
Socialist/Social Democrat/Green Social Democrat/Centre Right/Liberal Centre Right/Liberal/Libertarian
I agree with those, except for adding just a final one that might be missing in any new, post-PR landscape.
Far-Right/Libertarian. Anti-Vaxxers meet UKippers, which has already happened, and also as elswehere in the world political landcape.
I think the big missing piece is regionalist parties. Not SNP and Plaid - they would of course be there, as might one or two other Scottish parties - but parties representing regions of England too.
Most countries have a vote share hurdle for a party to enter parliament, of say 4 or 5%, but the UK couldn’t do that because of the impact on existing outfits like Plaid or the NI parties. So that opens the door for Mebyon Kernow and the Yorkshire party.
Well the UK could have eg a 5% hurdle in at least one of England, Scotland, Wales, NI.
A deliberately anti-regionalist policy.
You don't need a hard vote share cut-off if the system does it for you. The Yorkshire Party advocates an STV+ system, with constituencies of about 4 MPs (so a threshold in the upper teens), combined with regional top-up MPs, in regional constituencies of about 30-40 MPs, where the system would impose an effective threshold of about 3%.
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens 6 SNP 4
This poll is terrible for the LibDems. There is quite a lot of talk about The LDs picking up 20-30 seats in south England due to the slump in the Tory vote. This poll suggests that (net) zero dissilusioned tories are considering voting LD.
The 8% is no change from the previous poll. Ref is +1. You Gov consistently has the lowest Tory share and highest Labour share, with mediocre Lib Dem numbers.
It feels a bit Labour heavy and very Ref heavy. Recent council by-election results suggest the Lib Dems continuing to do pretty well.
In contrast to YouGov, Savanta has released its poll
Bumped into a chap called Keane Duncan yesterday, first on social media and then in the market square in Settle. Candidate for the first York and North Yorkshire mayorship, he manages to set out his wares without once mentioning the “C” word…
All good candidates do that when their party is unpopular. Watch for the neutral-coloured leaflets before the election too.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
So I drive.
Same. Last year I was working in a medium sized regional town, I had the option of a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, at least a 10 minute wait for the bus (sometimes 20 - they rarely ran to time), a 10 minute journey (thanks to bus lanes), then another 25 minute walk to work (or a 20 min wait for another bus to do a second 10 min journey as no connections). Total time: 50-60 mins.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Also: audiobooks make driving much more tolerable
You can lose yourself in a good book, the miles slip by
Podcast for me. The drive is an excellent time to devote to myself.
Yes, them too
I am kinda annoyed at myself for not realising the joys of audibooks and podcasts before. They are a godsend for boring hours when you have to use your hands and/or eyes but your ears are free - driving especially, but also household chores etc
Great for weight training too. Gym workouts are incredibly boring, and music doesn't seem to help much. But, out of desperation, I too have become a recent convert to podcasts. Now I find myself actually looking forward to a workout so I can listen to the next episode.
Yes, am exactly the same!
Audiobooks and podcasts are great at the gym. I am deep into Michael Wood's excellent History of China and I can sometimes forget I am actually working on the cross trainer, I get so lost in the narrative. Brilliant. So I do a workout AND I learn all about the Tang Dynasty poets
What are your favourite podcasts? Am always looking for new ones
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
which is the evil gun, and why?
The second one is just a modified handgun, no? I assume it's got to do with the reloading mechanism, bolt action and what not? I remember listening to some left wing pro gun people discuss the stupidity of some of the federal and state laws around the types of gun or gun mods you can have...
If I am correct (I may not be), the top gun is a M1 Garand, a WWII USA long rifle (it's the one that goes "ping" in Band of Brothers), and the bottom one is a (clone of a) Knights Armament SR-635 PDW.
The top one has a barrel over a certain length and a stock, which means it falls into a certain category from the POV of US legislation. It is the Good Gun.
The bottom one has a barrel under a certain length and an arm strap. The latter is meant to provide support for disabled shooters but because it can be used as a stock it is used to work around legislation, and is so the source of some debate. It is the Bad Gun
A PDW is a personal defence weapon, a shorter and smaller civilian derivative (see also carbines) of the longer military guns issued to frontline soldiers. Staff in the rear (cooks, guards, generals) or in confined spaces (pilots, tankers) often have carbine versions due to less need and smaller space, and PDW (personal defense weapons) are the civilianised versions. Fans of "Stargate" will recall the FN P90 which used it
The SR-635 depicted here appears to have the fire control mechanism of an AR15 but without the follower nor the deflector, a Picatinny rail to which a scope can be fitted, the arm strap as discussed, and the bit at the front that points downwards is meant to prevent you moving your hand too far forward and shooting your fingers off.
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens SNP 4
NPXMP is right. If Farage or Boris assume the leadership of REFUK, they could easily overtake the Tories
It's certainly an interesting question.
Almost everyone you talk to (who is paying any sort of attention, which is increasingly most) is in desperation about this government. About half are now willing to vote Labour to get rid of it.
But there's a decent sized pool of people who, however angry they are with the Tories, will never vote Labour. This is a pool the LibDems are fishing in, although many of these voters will simply stay at home.
There's also a decent sized pool of people who, however angry they are with the Tories, would not vote for a 'lefty' party of any sort. That's the pool that Reform is fishing in.
If the remaining voters mostly stay at home, the Tories are fishing in a puddle of die hard Conservatives. The question is how much less than their current 20% rating is the floor?
That depends on how credible an alternative there is on the right-of-centre.
In the 2019 Euros, the Conservatives finished fifth, with a single-digit share of the vote.
Yes, but the abstention rate was a lot higher then, whereas in a GE a lot of voters - especially older, small-c conservative ones - feel that voting in a GE is a duty.
Those voters probably voted in the Euros too, for that same reason. Either way though, if Reform was in the 20s+ and the Tories struggling around 10, the FPTP dynamics would push them towards Tice's lot.
1. Immediately reissue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats and wield that power “very aggressively."
2. Clean out all the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.
3. Totally reform FISA courts.
4. Establish a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to declassify and publish all documents on the deep state’s spying, censorship, and corruption.
5. Launch a major crackdown on government leakers who collude with “fake news to deliberately weave false narratives and subvert our government and democracy.”
6. Make every inspector general’s office independent and physically separated from the departments they oversee.
7. Ask Congress to establish an independent auditing system to continually monitor our intelligence agencies.
8. Continue the effort launched by the Trump administration to move parts of the federal bureaucracy to new locations outside the “Washington Swamp.”
9. Work to ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and regulate.
10. Push a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress.
A very powerful statement from the mother of Barnaby Webber about the Nottingham murders last year.
""You have blood on your hands," Barnaby's parents says to Griffen. "If you had just done your jobs properly there's a very good chance my beautiful boy would be alive today.""
It also sounds as though the families were not kept in the loop about the fact it was going to be a manslaughter charge, not murder.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
Are you not conflating ethnic cleansing and genocide here ?
Ethnic cleansing doesn't have a legal definition and is typically considered as part of other distinct war crimes or as part of genocide:
The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”
In this instance I would argue the forced removal of people from their land comes under parts b and c of the convention, and if I remember correctly that was part of the argument made to the ICJ and is typically how the concept of ethnic cleansing is incorporated into the legal definition of genocide.
Almost certainly - though it predated the convention. It's complicated by large numbers being voluntary flight, during and just after the war - and of course the context of the Nazi genocides across central Europe. But still, hard to avoid the judgment.
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
which is the evil gun, and why?
The second one is just a modified handgun, no? I assume it's got to do with the reloading mechanism, bolt action and what not? I remember listening to some left wing pro gun people discuss the stupidity of some of the federal and state laws around the types of gun or gun mods you can have...
If I am correct (I may not be), the top gun is a M1 Garand, a WWII USA long rifle (it's the one that goes "ping" in Band of Brothers), and the bottom one is a (clone of a) Knights Armament SR-635 PDW.
The top one has a barrel over a certain length and a stock, which means it falls into a certain category from the POV of US legislation. It is the Good Gun.
The bottom one has a barrel under a certain length and an arm strap. The latter is meant to provide support for disabled shooters but because it can be used as a stock it is used to work around legislation, and is so the source of some debate. It is the Bad Gun
A PDW is a personal defence weapon, a shorter and smaller civilian derivative (see also carbines) of the longer military guns issued to frontline soldiers. Staff in the rear (cooks, guards, generals) or in confined spaces (pilots, tankers) often have carbine versions due to less need and smaller space, and PDW (personal defense weapons) are the civilianised versions. Fans of "Stargate" will recall the FN P90 which used it
The SR-635 depicted here appears to have the fire control mechanism of an AR15 but without the follower nor the deflector, a Picatinny rail to which a scope can be fitted, the arm strap as discussed, and the bit at the front that points downwards is meant to prevent you moving your hand too far forward and shooting your fingers off.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
You don't get to be right by simply repeating an assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary. 148grss's graph clearly shows that that Houthi action only started having a significant impact on shipping a few weeks ago. While they may have been making a nuisance of themselves before then, that clearly wasn't on anything like the scale of the current attacks.
That graph only goes back to June 2020. They've been doing this since 2016.
The thing is, @148grss is trying to say the ship attacks - and the aim to close the Red Sea - are because of Israeli actions. I'm saying that's wrong, because of the precedents. You should be asking why Iran wants to close the Red Sea (again) - and it won't be anything to do with Israel.
That's simply not logical though. The fact that they may have tried to close the close the Red Sea in the past for other reasons doesn't mean they can't be trying to close it this time because of events in Israel. Not that there's likely to be a single reason anyway, but events in Israel are surely a major contributory factor. Do you really think that the Red Sea attacks would be happening at their current level if the Hamas attacks and subsequent Israeli invasion hadn't occurred?
A very powerful statement from the mother of Barnaby Webber about the Nottingham murders last year.
""You have blood on your hands," Barnaby's parents says to Griffen. "If you had just done your jobs properly there's a very good chance my beautiful boy would be alive today.""
It also sounds as though the families were not kept in the loop about the fact it was going to be a manslaughter charge, not murder.
I'm looking forward to @kinabalu 's response to that header.
Just done it!
In essence: my Big Short derives from my judgement of America and the American people. That it and they are not so far 'gone' - ie infantilized and corrupted - as to re-elect Donald Trump in the face of all that's known about him.
I still think this. I'm not too fussed about what the polls say right now. I think they'll change as the election nears and minds focus. I'm confident.
But I could be wrong. I'm not American, don't know many, and I don't live in America. This is intuition (albeit strong intuition) from a distance. And if I am wrong it's got to be very possible that I'm very wrong - hence why I've done this bet @ 4.7. It's value imo, both in itself and in the context of my overall book.
The American system of political log jam and legalised bribery has created a democracy where it feels like nothing can be changed.
When you add in the extremes of success/failure possible, Break The System starts to look attractive to some groups.
Hence Trump.
There's something in this but to assign it as the main reason for Trump's political success is cutting those who vote for him too much slack.
A very powerful statement from the mother of Barnaby Webber about the Nottingham murders last year.
""You have blood on your hands," Barnaby's parents says to Griffen. "If you had just done your jobs properly there's a very good chance my beautiful boy would be alive today.""
It also sounds as though the families were not kept in the loop about the fact it was going to be a manslaughter charge, not murder.
Schizo during a psychosis. Diminished responsibility, he will surely go to Broadmoor forever but yeah, if I was the parent of one of those dead kids I'd want him nailed for murder (and probably executed)
A short report from Channel 5 news about Operation SNAP (road crime reports via video uploads) in the Mercia Police Force. Blind bends are a theme of the examples.
One stat I had not picked up on before - 20% of drivers now run dashcams, which is where most reports come from.
I'm not sure of the 33516 reports in 2023 (that feels low to me - the London number alone was 15k+ in 2022), with 70% action taken (warning letter / educational course / FPN/ court summons).
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
which is the evil gun, and why?
The second one is just a modified handgun, no? I assume it's got to do with the reloading mechanism, bolt action and what not? I remember listening to some left wing pro gun people discuss the stupidity of some of the federal and state laws around the types of gun or gun mods you can have...
If I am correct (I may not be), the top gun is a M1 Garand, a WWII USA long rifle (it's the one that goes "ping" in Band of Brothers), and the bottom one is a (clone of a) Knights Armament SR-635 PDW.
The top one has a barrel over a certain length and a stock, which means it falls into a certain category from the POV of US legislation. It is the Good Gun.
The bottom one has a barrel under a certain length and an arm strap. The latter is meant to provide support for disabled shooters but because it can be used as a stock it is used to work around legislation, and is so the source of some debate. It is the Bad Gun
A PDW is a personal defence weapon, a shorter and smaller civilian derivative (see also carbines) of the longer military guns issued to frontline soldiers. Staff in the rear (cooks, guards, generals) or in confined spaces (pilots, tankers) often have carbine versions due to less need and smaller space, and PDW (personal defense weapons) are the civilianised versions. Fans of "Stargate" will recall the FN P90 which used it
The SR-635 depicted here appears to have the fire control mechanism of an AR15 but without the follower nor the deflector, a Picatinny rail to which a scope can be fitted, the arm strap as discussed, and the bit at the front that points downwards is meant to prevent you moving your hand too far forward and shooting your fingers off.
You wonder if Reform really start getting more media attention and Farage leads it, whether we might end up in a Canada 1992 scenario when the election comes.
Imagine the panic it would cause for Labour if Reform got some momentum and they suddenly found themselves on the back foot in an entirely different set of marginals.
In one sense, I don’t think it would instil that much panic, because the more split the Tory/Reform vote is the bigger they will win.
BUT
If there were to be a Reform surge then yes it could define the battlegrounds for the next political period. I suspect that those areas will be the battlegrounds anyway, based on the likely trajectory of the right in the next couple of years.
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens SNP 4
NPXMP is right. If Farage or Boris assume the leadership of REFUK, they could easily overtake the Tories
It's certainly an interesting question.
Almost everyone you talk to (who is paying any sort of attention, which is increasingly most) is in desperation about this government. About half are now willing to vote Labour to get rid of it.
But there's a decent sized pool of people who, however angry they are with the Tories, will never vote Labour. This is a pool the LibDems are fishing in, although many of these voters will simply stay at home.
There's also a decent sized pool of people who, however angry they are with the Tories, would not vote for a 'lefty' party of any sort. That's the pool that Reform is fishing in.
If the remaining voters mostly stay at home, the Tories are fishing in a puddle of die hard Conservatives. The question is how much less than their current 20% rating is the floor?
That depends on how credible an alternative there is on the right-of-centre.
In the 2019 Euros, the Conservatives finished fifth, with a single-digit share of the vote.
Yes, but the abstention rate was a lot higher then, whereas in a GE a lot of voters - especially older, small-c conservative ones - feel that voting in a GE is a duty.
Those voters probably voted in the Euros too, for that same reason. Either way though, if Reform was in the 20s+ and the Tories struggling around 10, the FPTP dynamics would push them towards Tice's lot.
Brand loyalty, particularly among the elderly, is pretty strong, though. It's taken me forty years to get my mother voting for her LibDem councillor in Sevenoaks, but come the GE she's always going to vote Tory.
1. Immediately reissue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats and wield that power “very aggressively."
2. Clean out all the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.
3. Totally reform FISA courts.
4. Establish a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to declassify and publish all documents on the deep state’s spying, censorship, and corruption.
5. Launch a major crackdown on government leakers who collude with “fake news to deliberately weave false narratives and subvert our government and democracy.”
6. Make every inspector general’s office independent and physically separated from the departments they oversee.
7. Ask Congress to establish an independent auditing system to continually monitor our intelligence agencies.
8. Continue the effort launched by the Trump administration to move parts of the federal bureaucracy to new locations outside the “Washington Swamp.”
9. Work to ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and regulate.
10. Push a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress.
Ah, no wonder the Tories are demanding that SKS committing to banning zombie knives. GRaun feed:
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
See also the comedies of the definition of an "Assault Weapon" in the US.
which is the evil gun, and why?
The second one is just a modified handgun, no? I assume it's got to do with the reloading mechanism, bolt action and what not? I remember listening to some left wing pro gun people discuss the stupidity of some of the federal and state laws around the types of gun or gun mods you can have...
If I am correct (I may not be), the top gun is a M1 Garand, a WWII USA long rifle (it's the one that goes "ping" in Band of Brothers), and the bottom one is a (clone of a) Knights Armament SR-635 PDW.
The top one has a barrel over a certain length and a stock, which means it falls into a certain category from the POV of US legislation. It is the Good Gun.
The bottom one has a barrel under a certain length and an arm strap. The latter is meant to provide support for disabled shooters but because it can be used as a stock it is used to work around legislation, and is so the source of some debate. It is the Bad Gun
A PDW is a personal defence weapon, a shorter and smaller civilian derivative (see also carbines) of the longer military guns issued to frontline soldiers. Staff in the rear (cooks, guards, generals) or in confined spaces (pilots, tankers) often have carbine versions due to less need and smaller space, and PDW (personal defense weapons) are the civilianised versions. Fans of "Stargate" will recall the FN P90 which used it
The SR-635 depicted here appears to have the fire control mechanism of an AR15 but without the follower nor the deflector, a Picatinny rail to which a scope can be fitted, the arm strap as discussed, and the bit at the front that points downwards is meant to prevent you moving your hand too far forward and shooting your fingers off.
This is true. I shall commit hari-kiri immediately to atone.
But a bayonet with a sharpened point is considered illegal*. A blunt one will be no good for sepukku.
*Urban legend, but hey.
Then I shall fashion a pointy stick.
Presumably that's what we'll all have when members of the new Citizens Militia or whatever it's going to be called.
Why do we need a Civilian Militia - who are we fighting (obviously the people of Surrey and Kent it goes without saying) ? Apparently there is a Russian "threat" ?
Seriously - I'm not sure a pointy stick is much use against a nuclear missile but those in the defence debate seem to have gone collectively insane.
Another interesting question, if the Tories merge with Reform, is whether there are enough more moderate Tory MP's left for the Parliamentary party to split, or whether a new party will simply emerge, separately.
There are very large gaps opening up on the Centre-Right, and Left, of British politics.
There aren't enough Remainer, One Nation Tory MPs to make up a new party that can win seats under FPTP, at most they would go LD.
The Tories would only likely merge with Reform, Canada style, if Reform overtook them on seats and votes.
Under PR of course the Tories and Reform could stay separate parties but form coalition governments together
The logic would be that a new party would emerge to the left of Labour (maybe combining with the Greens, maybe not) - that gap in the market has long been obvious, leaving the Labour brand as a moderate, social democratic party. So the LibDems would have to shift into a centre-right, FDP type position that would accommodate those one nation Tories, leaving whatever emerges from the wreckage of the car crash on the right as the right wing party. Whether there's an additional space beyond that for the extremely nutty right wing (other than as a fringe protest party) isn't at all clear.
New parties emerging under PR is less common and more random than such predictions make out. For ex., National and Labour both remained intact after NZ switched to PR.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
It's not whataboutism - or at least, it isn't unless the only thing that matters in the entire world are Israeli actions. You cannot condemn Israeli strikes on its neighbours without condemning strikes on Israel from its neighbours, or attacks by those neighbours on other countries. Israeli actions are not occurring in a vacuum, but are both a response to, and a cause of, other factors.
What is happening in Palestine and Israel is a result of a whole mixture of things, both internally and externally to those countries.
And you have made your position clear: AIUI your 'solution' to the problem is for there to be one state, with majority Palestinian population, with a 'truth and reconciliation' process. Which anyone sane sees would result in a genocide of the Jews.
You support the Houthis in attacking Red Sea shipping, despite the fact that they are not attacking it because of Israel, and the fact that it risks making the conflict much wider, as well as causing untold suffering to others.
Those are your positions. IMV they are terrible positions.
You can support the Palestinians without supporting the Houthis or Iran.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I sold my car last year. I still occasionally miss it, but not because I regret selling it, the logic of getting rid of it was indisputable. I was using it twice a month, and paying hundreds a month to keep it
I miss it because it was a fun fast car with a splendid blue-to-black roof (a Mini JCW) and getting in it was always fun
More to the point, how is the PB Weightwatchers Club?
I just got on the scales. 86kg! I have lost almost 12kg. A large chunk of me is missing. I don't think I will hit my target weight by Feb 8 as I hoped, but it is still coming down, and I should get there in Feb some time. It feels good; I definitely feel healthier
Fucking boring tho. Dieting and lots of sober days. YAWN
Heh, I started on 86kg, but for reference I was about 70kg pre-Lockdown blues. Imagine a stick thin guy but with massive jowly puffy face and enormous sticky out beer belly if you want to know what I looked like in december. Honestly, I looked like I was pregnant.
Currently on 81kg. 4 of those were lost in the first couple of weeks, but only 1kg down since then (last 2 weeks).
I'm putting this down to a) water weight loss from stopping drinking and b) it was much easier to fast/restrict calories while I was burning off sugar accumulated from alcohol. Much harder to go a day without eating now I don't have those sugar reserves.
Big question is will the diet last past Dry January. I'm aware my relationship with alcohol became pretty unhealthy during lockdown, but also, everything in my social life revolves around drinking.
Hideous photos of oneself when horribly fat are a big motivator. I have found one of me in late November last year, Peak Porkiness. My head is the size of a planetoid and I am so grossly fat I have really noticeable MOOBS. Jeez. And the weird thing is, at the time I thought I was looking OK. The power of denial, eh
I hear you on the booze, but I have had to slow down or I will keel over. I started with cutting out the drinking of red wine first thing in the morning. I reckon, in retrospect, that wasn't entirely healthy. Then I turned on lunchtime boozing. Now I am restricting my days of boozing alone at home, in the evening (which is a shame, as I love a nice bottle of red, on my own, watching Netflix)
I still drink quite a lot by any standards - and hope to continue - but it is less than half what it was
I find fasting much easier than not drinking, dunno why. I can go days without food and its fine
Yeah, I was morning drinking during lockdown. People may judge, but I was suicidal at the time (Thanks, Lockdown!) and it was what I needed to do to survive. Looking back... I was completely over the edge. Big red schnozz, crumpled beard hiding sagging jowls... I probably looked like a man who'd decided to drink himself to death.
Luckily I had a good doctor who tapered me off it with diazepam, but in the last year or so I settled into a pattern of going to the pub at lunchtime for two pints and a sandwich to to break up the monotony of the work day, then a bottle of wine at home in the evenings. As you say, it makes Netflix more interesting. I read *a lot* more now I'm not drinking, which is an unexpected bonus. Plus regular friday and saturday night blowouts with friends. I'm now a month off that (last drink was on Boxing day).
I'd like to get back to a place where I can drink with friends but not drink at home alone, as not going out is turning me into a hermit. But I suspect drinking out with friends will turn me back into a home drinker again pretty rapidly and I'll be back to square one.
It's a bind. No social life forever, or hang out with the sort of people who eat tofu and do yoga and talk about wellness...
1. Immediately reissue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats and wield that power “very aggressively."
2. Clean out all the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.
3. Totally reform FISA courts.
4. Establish a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to declassify and publish all documents on the deep state’s spying, censorship, and corruption.
5. Launch a major crackdown on government leakers who collude with “fake news to deliberately weave false narratives and subvert our government and democracy.”
6. Make every inspector general’s office independent and physically separated from the departments they oversee.
7. Ask Congress to establish an independent auditing system to continually monitor our intelligence agencies.
8. Continue the effort launched by the Trump administration to move parts of the federal bureaucracy to new locations outside the “Washington Swamp.”
9. Work to ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and regulate.
10. Push a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress.
Can he let us know the truth about UFO's ?
That would fall under point 5 about government leakers colluding with fake news.
A short report from Channel 5 news about Operation SNAP (road crime reports via video uploads) in the Mercia Police Force. Blind bends are a theme of the examples.
One stat I had not picked up on before - 20% of drivers now run dashcams, which is where most reports come from.
I'm not sure of the 33516 reports in 2023 (that feels low to me - the London number alone was 15k+ in 2022), with 70% action taken (warning letter / educational course / FPN/ court summons).
I have uploaded and reported people to the Police via the Website. Mainly Durham but also Northumbria when I venture that far.
Since the Go North East bus strike concluded I have been, especially, targetting their bus drivers.
Why on earth are you doing that.
The reason they went on strike was because they were being paid 50% less than other bus drivers working for Go Ahead in other parts of the country l.
I really do wonder about the sanity of some people.
Also the only end result of your action is a bus driver possibly losing their license and with no one sane rushing to do the job a reduced bus service for those who need it.
Round here Arriva can’t find bus drivers at all because for what they are paying it ain’t worth the hassle - the warehouses pay more and offer better t&cs.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
A very powerful statement from the mother of Barnaby Webber about the Nottingham murders last year.
""You have blood on your hands," Barnaby's parents says to Griffen. "If you had just done your jobs properly there's a very good chance my beautiful boy would be alive today.""
It also sounds as though the families were not kept in the loop about the fact it was going to be a manslaughter charge, not murder.
Schizo during a psychosis. Diminished responsibility, he will surely go to Broadmoor forever but yeah, if I was the parent of one of those dead kids I'd want him nailed for murder (and probably executed)
How much will it cost to keep him in Broadmoor for the rest of his life?
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens 6 SNP 4
This poll is terrible for the LibDems. There is quite a lot of talk about The LDs picking up 20-30 seats in south England due to the slump in the Tory vote. This poll suggests that (net) zero dissilusioned tories are considering voting LD.
The 8% is no change from the previous poll. Ref is +1. You Gov consistently has the lowest Tory share and highest Labour share, with mediocre Lib Dem numbers.
It feels a bit Labour heavy and very Ref heavy. Recent council by-election results suggest the Lib Dems continuing to do pretty well.
In contrast to YouGov, Savanta has released its poll
Individual polls are pretty useless. The only thing that's worth looking at is an average of the latest X number of polls, although no-one can agree what X should be, with regard to both number and date.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
Comments
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
Apparently they were all sitting in reconciliation circles and singing kum-bi-ya instead
'You may think the government was meant to have banned them already. According to Labour, the government has made 16 announcements on this theme since 2015. But, as Chris Philp, the policing minister, admitted this morning, a previous crackdown contained a rather obvious loophole.
When the government legislated to ban zombie knives, it defined them as blades having a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”. When the legislation came into force, manufacturers came up with a cunning ploy to get round the ban; they just left off the images or logos.'
Having said that I sincerely wish them well in their mission to destroy the tories.
Width under 1.6m
The Tas Tepeler are so strange and jarring and wondrous they don’t fit any accepted narrative (let alone some narrow culture wars angle)
An entirely buried civilisation, 12,000 years old at least, apparently able to build a network of cultic villages/towns with temples and shrines and auditoriums out of exquisitely carved stone - far beyond anything at Stonehenge (7000 years later
They had elaborate rituals and certain clothing and astronomical knowledge and ability to pipe water - and on and on. It gets weirder every year
Who were they?? Where did they go? Did they really do all that without writing and agriculture?
Seems impossible. It is a magnificent mystery which baffles everyone - and I think this is why it is still weirdly overlooked - why you can still meet educated people who’ve never even heard of Gobekli Tepe. It’s so bewildering and so confounding for most paleo-human timelines it is easier to ignore it
I would expect the Social democratic party and the Centre Right party to be the main parties with a swing to the far right party occasionally. I think the potential coalitions are obvious but with the occasional surprises. I suspect the far right would not be included in most coalitions unless other parties had to and the liberals could go into the coalition with either side of the right left spectrum. Obvious combinations are:
Socialist/Social Democrat/Green
Social Democrat/Centre Right/Liberal
Centre Right/Liberal/Libertarian
Missing out on a cheap split because you've booked with one web site rather than another should not happen.
I've had an enormous amount of fun squeezing into spaces next to pristine overhanging Ford Rangers.
https://www.reformparty.uk/find-my-candidate
Doesn't Israel have to be realistic and accept that there is no route to peace, with Palestinians or other Middle Eastern nations, without an intergrated society and a right to return for Palestinians who have been displaced - both now but also during the Nakba?
which is the evil gun, and why?
Sunak's main failing as a leader has been a failure to article the "why?". A good enough "why" can mitigate against behaviour and lead to clothes-peg-on-nose voting (e.g. Trump) but since he doesn't - although seems mystified as to why his confusing mix of extra maths, canning HS2 and no more fags didn’t do it - there's absolutely nothing propping it up.
It would only be worth changing leader if another could do much better than this, and save seats, even a Hague 2001 play might be better than this now, but such a candidate doesn't exist.
The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
In this instance I would argue the forced removal of people from their land comes under parts b and c of the convention, and if I remember correctly that was part of the argument made to the ICJ and is typically how the concept of ethnic cleansing is incorporated into the legal definition of genocide.
Far-Right/Libertarian. Anti-Vaxxers meet UKippers, which has already happened, and also as elswehere in the world political landcape.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
How many cars are taller than they are wide ?
Mr. Leon, to be fair, a huge number of people know nothing about the Eastern Roman Empire even though it was long-lived and hugely important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950)
So I drive.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/unintended-consequences-of-the-awb-the-olympic-arms-oa-98/
Devilishly difficult to prevent re-identification in record level data otherwise. You can try tricks such as perturbing the data so that e.g. dates don't match up, but that can have consequences for analysis - say you randomly add/subtract a number between 1 and 10 to the admission date, that screws any day of the week pattern analysis.
I work with record level data and would easily be able to find* my own admissions and those of my family etc - if I knew where, age, sex, admission and discharge dates that would probably be enough. I don't, of course (and could face severe penalties if I did) but anyway I wouldn't be able to do that for some random person. Could, potentially, for a neighbour etc if I was nosey and knew admission/discharge dates etc. But any insurer with information on admissions, or Google and co with location tracking etc and it could be fairly trivial. So then you have to rely on legal penalties, but you also need to catch people.
*I'd first have to obtain the data - I have to justify the inclusion criteria, so I'd be unlikely to get blanket all admissions to go fishing. I did once get all admissions for children in a six year age group England, but had a very good reason for that (all population comparisons) and that went under a lot of scrutiny - had to show there was no other way.
The evil one (under several US laws) is the top one (The M1 with the wooden furniture). Because it has a lug for mounting a bayonet.
In the 2019 Euros, the Conservatives finished fifth, with a single-digit share of the vote.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Of course, they have to start backing these numbers up in real votes. Hello Wellingborough and Kingswood, where in both cases, Reform have reasonably high-profile (for them) candidates.
I miss it because it was a fun fast car with a splendid blue-to-black roof (a Mini JCW) and getting in it was always fun
More to the point, how is the PB Weightwatchers Club?
I just got on the scales. 86kg! I have lost almost 12kg. A large chunk of me is missing. I don't think I will hit my target weight by Feb 8 as I hoped, but it is still coming down, and I should get there in Feb some time. It feels good; I definitely feel healthier
Fucking boring tho. Dieting and lots of sober days. YAWN
You can lose yourself in a good book, the miles slip by
One stat I had not picked up on before - 20% of drivers now run dashcams, which is where most reports come from.
I'm not sure of the 33516 reports in 2023 (that feels low to me - the London number alone was 15k+ in 2022), with 70% action taken (warning letter / educational course / FPN/ court summons).
https://twitter.com/5_News/status/1750219296809107944
Here are the splits for this journey, (it's changed very slightly since earlier)
B'ham -> Coventry: £5.50
Coventry -> Leamington Spa: £5.90
Leamington Spa -> Banbury: £9.70
Banbury -> Basingstoke: £20.20
Basingstoke -> Winchester: £7
Winchester -> Southampton Airport: £4
Southampton Airport -> Bournemouth: £13.50
Total: £65.80
Most countries have a vote share hurdle for a party to enter parliament, of say 4 or 5%, but the UK couldn’t do that because of the impact on existing outfits like Plaid or the NI parties. So that opens the door for Mebyon Kernow and the Yorkshire party.
Currently on 81kg. 4 of those were lost in the first couple of weeks, but only 1kg down since then (last 2 weeks).
I'm putting this down to a) water weight loss from stopping drinking and b) it was much easier to fast/restrict calories while I was burning off sugar accumulated from alcohol. Much harder to go a day without eating now I don't have those sugar reserves.
Big question is will the diet last past Dry January. I'm aware my relationship with alcohol became pretty unhealthy during lockdown, but also, everything in my social life revolves around drinking.
- Cost
- Convenience
- Speed / time
- Pleasantness.
For short-to-medium distance journeys, the car will generally win on most, if not all, of them. Trips to city centres may be an exception though even then, convenience and pleasantness can often outweigh cost and/or time.
The top one has a barrel over a certain length and a stock, which means it falls into a certain category from the POV of US legislation. It is the Good Gun.
The bottom one has a barrel under a certain length and an arm strap. The latter is meant to provide support for disabled shooters but because it can be used as a stock it is used to work around legislation, and is so the source of some debate. It is the Bad Gun
A PDW is a personal defence weapon, a shorter and smaller civilian derivative (see also carbines) of the longer military guns issued to frontline soldiers. Staff in the rear (cooks, guards, generals) or in confined spaces (pilots, tankers) often have carbine versions due to less need and smaller space, and PDW (personal defense weapons) are the civilianised versions. Fans of "Stargate" will recall the FN P90 which used it
The SR-635 depicted here appears to have the fire control mechanism of an AR15 but without the follower nor the deflector, a Picatinny rail to which a scope can be fitted, the arm strap as discussed, and the bit at the front that points downwards is meant to prevent you moving your hand too far forward and shooting your fingers off.
Pause
I can talk about Star Trek instead if you like...
https://thereptilehouseblog.com/2018/01/26/knights-armament-sr-635-clone/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand
I am kinda annoyed at myself for not realising the joys of audibooks and podcasts before. They are a godsend for boring hours when you have to use your hands and/or eyes but your ears are free - driving especially, but also household chores etc
It feels a bit Labour heavy and very Ref heavy. Recent council by-election results suggest the Lib Dems continuing to do pretty well.
2) Yes, it does matter. Because the reason they were doing it before - which was *not* to do with Israel - might be antithetical to what you want.
3) So they're lying. Yet you trust them.
I hear you on the booze, but I have had to slow down or I will keel over. I started with cutting out the drinking of red wine first thing in the morning. I reckon, in retrospect, that wasn't entirely healthy. Then I turned on lunchtime boozing. Now I am restricting my days of boozing alone at home, in the evening (which is a shame, as I love a nice bottle of red, on my own, watching Netflix)
I still drink quite a lot by any standards - and hope to continue - but it is less than half what it was
I find fasting much easier than not drinking, dunno why. I can go days without food and its fine
I think rail tickets will be up for reform - on occasion I have had up to 20 separate credit-card sized pieces of card in my hand without split-tickets, and I am familiar with people having 50 or 60 for a single journey if eg they are taking a child and both having cycles.
I can't see that lasting very long.
I assume the logic is that most of the people booking from the pier to London are visitors - i.e. tourists - whereas people booking further along the line are mostly locals (with some tourists). And it's an attempt at price discrimination between the two.
The thing is, @148grss is trying to say the ship attacks - and the aim to close the Red Sea - are because of Israeli actions. I'm saying that's wrong, because of the precedents. You should be asking why Iran wants to close the Red Sea (again) - and it won't be anything to do with Israel.
You don't need a hard vote share cut-off if the system does it for you. The Yorkshire Party advocates an STV+ system, with constituencies of about 4 MPs (so a threshold in the upper teens), combined with regional top-up MPs, in regional constituencies of about 30-40 MPs, where the system would impose an effective threshold of about 3%.
https://twitter.com/Savanta_UK/status/1750473600119795815
📈14pt Labour lead - lowest since Sept '23
🌹Lab 43 (-1)
🌳Con 29 (+2)
🔶LD 10 (-1)
➡️Reform 8 (+1)
🌍Green 4 (=)
🎗️SNP 3 (=)
⬜️Other 4 (=)
2,017 UK adults, 19-21 January
(chg 12-14 January)
Audiobooks and podcasts are great at the gym. I am deep into Michael Wood's excellent History of China and I can sometimes forget I am actually working on the cross trainer, I get so lost in the narrative. Brilliant. So I do a workout AND I learn all about the Tang Dynasty poets
What are your favourite podcasts? Am always looking for new ones
*Urban legend, but hey.
https://x.com/leadingreport/status/1750332674701463838
Trump’s plan to dismantle the ‘Deep State':
1. Immediately reissue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats and wield that power “very aggressively."
2. Clean out all the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.
3. Totally reform FISA courts.
4. Establish a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to declassify and publish all documents on the deep state’s spying, censorship, and corruption.
5. Launch a major crackdown on government leakers who collude with “fake news to deliberately weave false narratives and subvert our government and democracy.”
6. Make every inspector general’s office independent and physically separated from the departments they oversee.
7. Ask Congress to establish an independent auditing system to continually monitor our intelligence agencies.
8. Continue the effort launched by the Trump administration to move parts of the federal bureaucracy to new locations outside the “Washington Swamp.”
9. Work to ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and regulate.
10. Push a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress.
""You have blood on your hands," Barnaby's parents says to Griffen. "If you had just done your jobs properly there's a very good chance my beautiful boy would be alive today.""
It also sounds as though the families were not kept in the loop about the fact it was going to be a manslaughter charge, not murder.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-nottinghamshire-68070453
It's complicated by large numbers being voluntary flight, during and just after the war - and of course the context of the Nazi genocides across central Europe. But still, hard to avoid the judgment.
Since the Go North East bus strike concluded I have been, especially, targetting their bus drivers.
BUT
If there were to be a Reform surge then yes it could define the battlegrounds for the next political period. I suspect that those areas will be the battlegrounds anyway, based on the likely trajectory of the right in the next couple of years.
Why do we need a Civilian Militia - who are we fighting (obviously the people of Surrey and Kent it goes without saying) ? Apparently there is a Russian "threat" ?
Seriously - I'm not sure a pointy stick is much use against a nuclear missile but those in the defence debate seem to have gone collectively insane.
What is happening in Palestine and Israel is a result of a whole mixture of things, both internally and externally to those countries.
And you have made your position clear: AIUI your 'solution' to the problem is for there to be one state, with majority Palestinian population, with a 'truth and reconciliation' process. Which anyone sane sees would result in a genocide of the Jews.
You support the Houthis in attacking Red Sea shipping, despite the fact that they are not attacking it because of Israel, and the fact that it risks making the conflict much wider, as well as causing untold suffering to others.
Those are your positions. IMV they are terrible positions.
You can support the Palestinians without supporting the Houthis or Iran.
Luckily I had a good doctor who tapered me off it with diazepam, but in the last year or so I settled into a pattern of going to the pub at lunchtime for two pints and a sandwich to to break up the monotony of the work day, then a bottle of wine at home in the evenings. As you say, it makes Netflix more interesting. I read *a lot* more now I'm not drinking, which is an unexpected bonus. Plus regular friday and saturday night blowouts with friends. I'm now a month off that (last drink was on Boxing day).
I'd like to get back to a place where I can drink with friends but not drink at home alone, as not going out is turning me into a hermit. But I suspect drinking out with friends will turn me back into a home drinker again pretty rapidly and I'll be back to square one.
It's a bind. No social life forever, or hang out with the sort of people who eat tofu and do yoga and talk about wellness...
The reason they went on strike was because they were being paid 50% less than other bus drivers working for Go Ahead in other parts of the country l.
I really do wonder about the sanity of some people.
Also the only end result of your action is a bus driver possibly losing their license and with no one sane rushing to do the job a reduced bus service for those who need it.
Round here Arriva can’t find bus drivers at all because for what they are paying it ain’t worth the hassle - the warehouses pay more and offer better t&cs.
Pope.