An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
A fair point
I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous
But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr
I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.
Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.
And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.
But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.
At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.
Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense
eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist
It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war
Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes
Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.
The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.
THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War
"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"
What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?
There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?
Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?
Macron on French TV this evening : The war in 🇺🇦 is “existential…”If Russia were to win, life for the French would change. We would no longer have security in Europe. Who can seriously believe that Putin, who has respected no limits, would stop there?”
"Tsar Alexander reached Paris!" - Stalin in 1945, upon being congratulated by a Western journalist.
The question is whether Starmer will be as good on Ukraine as Boris and Sunak have been. It is the only one that will really define him in the history books. I worry he may have a bit of a Lord Halifax appeaser in him.
You can worry but I'd be a wee bit more concerned by all the Trump fans on the other side. All of them would be very happy to become London Leader for United Russia
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
The problem here is that the war crimes very clearly have cover from the top. It's not just about an individual soldier or an individual commander; it's systematic, and motivated by other reasons than defeating Hamas.
Before you can say that, you have to be able to define, very clearly, what the war crimes are.
Not the law in this conflict. The law explicitly and quite clearly at the end of WWII said that starvation is legal. Multiple courts ruled it so.
The only thing that might say otherwise is as that link says Protocol II, however Israel (and many of Israel's neighbours) have not signed or ratified that treaty so it doesn't apply to them any more than the European Convention of Human Rights applies to Canada.
That may be the legal status, but that shouldn't stop us regarding it as something which they should be pressured to stop doing.
Pressure all you like, that's international relations, but the law is the legal status, is it not?
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
The problem here is that the war crimes very clearly have cover from the top. It's not just about an individual soldier or an individual commander; it's systematic, and motivated by other reasons than defeating Hamas.
Before you can say that, you have to be able to define, very clearly, what the war crimes are.
Not the law in this conflict. The law explicitly and quite clearly at the end of WWII said that starvation is legal. Multiple courts ruled it so.
The only thing that might say otherwise is as that link says Protocol II, however Israel (and many of Israel's neighbours) have not signed or ratified that treaty so it doesn't apply to them any more than the European Convention of Human Rights applies to Canada.
That may be the legal status, but that shouldn't stop us regarding it as something which they should be pressured to stop doing. Unless you're fine with it, of course.
Ultimately I don't think it will work out to Israel's advantage. Causing, or even failing to help out with, starvation is something that people remember with bitterness against you for centuries. Consider the Irish Potato famine, for example.
Macron on French TV this evening : The war in 🇺🇦 is “existential…”If Russia were to win, life for the French would change. We would no longer have security in Europe. Who can seriously believe that Putin, who has respected no limits, would stop there?”
"Tsar Alexander reached Paris!" - Stalin in 1945, upon being congratulated by a Western journalist.
The question is whether Starmer will be as good on Ukraine as Boris and Sunak have been. It is the only one that will really define him in the history books. I worry he may have a bit of a Lord Halifax appeaser in him.
I see no evidence of appeasement from Starmer. However, he will have a formidable in-tray, and the budgetary pressures on the country are acute. I fear that he may end up going through the motions somewhat, and not making the extra effort that is required.
Indeed, I fear that this may be a fair description of Sunak's level of engagement. Had Boris Johnson been able to remain as PM more might well have been done.
If puberty blockers are unsafe and irreversible, why does NICE still allow them to be used for precocious puberty?
Presumably because using them is better for the patient than not using them. Chemotherapy drugs actively harm patients, but the aim is to get rid of the cancer cells, so associated harms are tolerated.
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
A fair point
I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous
But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr
I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.
Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.
And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.
But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.
At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.
Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense
eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist
It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war
Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes
Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.
The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.
THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War
"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"
What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?
There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?
Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?
We know how we would have reacted because Germany did invade the Channel Islands. And the germans were evidently disgusted with the levels of compliance and collaboration from the locals. So thats what would have happened we would have collaborated.
The remaining islanders (many had fled especially from Guernsey and Alderney) recognised the infirmity of their situation.
An invasion of the British mainland would have been different. Presumably there would have been heavy fighting either close to the beaches or at the GHQ line - let's assume the British withdraw from your town after a brief struggle and the Germans march in with tanks and soldiers and set up a field HQ in the local town hall or some other building which hasn't been too badly damaged in the fighting. What can you, as an unarmed citizen, do?
You might have hope of a quick liberation - the famous Sandhurst study of a German invasion in September 1940 showed it failing and the Germans forced to withdraw or surrender after 72-96 hours. Oddly enough, the impact of the first significant military reversal might have been dramatic.
So your occupation might have been brief but enough time for the Germans to indulge in a little pillage and looting and the execution of anyone even thought to be resisting. The Germans had been told to believe "correctly" toward the British population (contrary to what had happened in Poland for example) but in the heat of battle, who knows?
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
The problem here is that the war crimes very clearly have cover from the top. It's not just about an individual soldier or an individual commander; it's systematic, and motivated by other reasons than defeating Hamas.
Before you can say that, you have to be able to define, very clearly, what the war crimes are.
Not the law in this conflict. The law explicitly and quite clearly at the end of WWII said that starvation is legal. Multiple courts ruled it so.
The only thing that might say otherwise is as that link says Protocol II, however Israel (and many of Israel's neighbours) have not signed or ratified that treaty so it doesn't apply to them any more than the European Convention of Human Rights applies to Canada.
That may be the legal status, but that shouldn't stop us regarding it as something which they should be pressured to stop doing. Unless you're fine with it, of course.
Ultimately I don't think it will work out to Israel's advantage. Causing, or even failing to help out with, starvation is something that people remember with bitterness against you for centuries. Consider the Irish Potato famine, for example.
Ireland was a sovereign part of the UK at the time of the potato famine, not a war zone so I wouldn't compare the two.
If others want to help out with the war zone, then they can, and if you want pressure you can, but its only a crime if its against the law and its not against the law there.
The pre-Protocols law still applies there which means blockades, including of food and water, are explicitly legal.
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
A fair point
I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous
But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr
I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.
Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.
And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.
But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.
At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.
Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense
eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist
It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war
Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes
Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.
The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.
THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War
"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"
What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?
There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?
Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?
Exactly the same as with France or the Channel Islands, mostly quiet and grudging compliance. Maybe, hopefully, some resistance, there were still plenty of WWI guns in private hands and the veterans of the Spanish Civil War would know that their names are known and it would be fight or end up in the camps. But I don't imagine a particularly heroic mass resistance.
The occupation of the Channel Islands effectively precluded resistance given the size of the garrison in relation to the population of the islands. There were 65,000 civilians on the islands and 26,000 in the garrison.
The occupation of Britain as a whole would have been very different - apart from the main coastal towns there would have been main garrison towns which would cover large areas so if you lived in a rural village you could go months without even seeing a German soldier. I believe the plan was for an overall garrison of 250,000.
One option, as happened in France, was to have the coastal towns especially in the south and east, under direct German military control while the interior would have been left to a puppet British Government.
Madeline Buntings book about the channel island occupation set out the case that the British would act just the same as any other conquered race, but the sheer number of troops in such a small area, and one with many of the men missing, meant it was an unfair comparison. And yet tales of the French resistance are very mixed indeed. Many people would get their heads down, hope for the best and after a time enjoy drinking a cup of tea with that nice Hans from Magdeburg. It takes a lot of courage to be an active resister when the consequences could include not just your own death, but those of your family and even you4 entire village.
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
A fair point
I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous
But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr
I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.
Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.
And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.
But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.
At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.
Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense
eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist
It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war
Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes
Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.
The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.
THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War
"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"
What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?
There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?
Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?
The channel islands provide a good guide.
They don’t though. Too small, most of the men of fighting age gone, and far too many Germans.
I also haven’t seen PeterthePunter so hope all is well with him.
@CarlottaVance hasn't been seen here for three months. Is it known why?
With regards to @CarlottaVance, I assume their departure was for the same reason as @Socrates: having concentrated so much on one subject (Scottish Gender Recognition for CV, Brexit for S) then once the objective was achieved there was no reason to continue posting
With regards to @Andy_JS, whilst it is too early to get worried he usually posts frequently and is one of the few to regularly post past midnight UK time, so his absence is noticable.
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
A fair point
I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous
But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr
I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.
Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.
And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.
But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.
At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.
Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense
eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist
It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war
Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes
Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.
The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.
THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War
"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"
What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?
There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?
Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?
The channel islands provide a good guide.
They don’t at all really. Tiny area and easy to control by a very large garrison - to garrison the UK in same proportion would need millions of German troops.
Weapons and a lot of fighting age men had left already to add to the British army.
Very hard to smuggle in weapons and explosives as the beaches here make the beaches in Normandy look open and inviting at the time with the level of defences.
Also total German control over food - people were starving after D-day until the Red Cross ships started being able to supply.
The UK had huge plans for defence in a German invasion and massive stockpiles of arms were already placed around the country and strategies for in depth defence which would have made getting control of the UK an absolute bloodbath. Plenty of land for resistance to escape to.
There had been a big training programme for resistance fighters and so not in a situation like France where nobody expected what happened and no real plans and prep were made.
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
A fair point
I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous
But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr
I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.
Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.
And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.
But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.
At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.
Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense
eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist
It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war
Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes
Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.
The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.
THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War
"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"
What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?
There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?
Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?
Exactly the same as with France or the Channel Islands, mostly quiet and grudging compliance. Maybe, hopefully, some resistance, there were still plenty of WWI guns in private hands and the veterans of the Spanish Civil War would know that their names are known and it would be fight or end up in the camps. But I don't imagine a particularly heroic mass resistance.
The occupation of the Channel Islands effectively precluded resistance given the size of the garrison in relation to the population of the islands. There were 65,000 civilians on the islands and 26,000 in the garrison.
The occupation of Britain as a whole would have been very different - apart from the main coastal towns there would have been main garrison towns which would cover large areas so if you lived in a rural village you could go months without even seeing a German soldier. I believe the plan was for an overall garrison of 250,000.
One option, as happened in France, was to have the coastal towns especially in the south and east, under direct German military control while the interior would have been left to a puppet British Government.
Madeline Buntings book about the channel island occupation set out the case that the British would act just the same as any other conquered race, but the sheer number of troops in such a small area, and one with many of the men missing, meant it was an unfair comparison. And yet tales of the French resistance are very mixed indeed. Many people would get their heads down, hope for the best and after a time enjoy drinking a cup of tea with that nice Hans from Magdeburg. It takes a lot of courage to be an active resister when the consequences could include not just your own death, but those of your family and even you4 entire village.
I also haven’t seen PeterthePunter so hope all is well with him.
@CarlottaVance hasn't been seen here for three months. Is it known why?
With regards to @CarlottaVance, I assume their departure was for the same reason as @Socrates: having concentrated so much on one subject (Scottish Gender Recognition for CV, Brexit for S) then once the objective was achieved there was no reason to continue posting
With regards to @Andy_JS, whilst it is too early to get worried he usually posts frequently and is one of the few to regularly post past midnight UK time, so his absence is noticable.
Re CarlottaVance her interests are much wider than what you say, and included the Channel Isles topically enough for this thread
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
A fair point
I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous
But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr
I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.
Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.
And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.
But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.
At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.
Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense
eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist
It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war
Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes
Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.
The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.
THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War
"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"
What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?
There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?
Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?
Exactly the same as with France or the Channel Islands, mostly quiet and grudging compliance. Maybe, hopefully, some resistance, there were still plenty of WWI guns in private hands and the veterans of the Spanish Civil War would know that their names are known and it would be fight or end up in the camps. But I don't imagine a particularly heroic mass resistance.
The occupation of the Channel Islands effectively precluded resistance given the size of the garrison in relation to the population of the islands. There were 65,000 civilians on the islands and 26,000 in the garrison.
The occupation of Britain as a whole would have been very different - apart from the main coastal towns there would have been main garrison towns which would cover large areas so if you lived in a rural village you could go months without even seeing a German soldier. I believe the plan was for an overall garrison of 250,000.
One option, as happened in France, was to have the coastal towns especially in the south and east, under direct German military control while the interior would have been left to a puppet British Government.
Madeline Buntings book about the channel island occupation set out the case that the British would act just the same as any other conquered race, but the sheer number of troops in such a small area, and one with many of the men missing, meant it was an unfair comparison. And yet tales of the French resistance are very mixed indeed. Many people would get their heads down, hope for the best and after a time enjoy drinking a cup of tea with that nice Hans from Magdeburg. It takes a lot of courage to be an active resister when the consequences could include not just your own death, but those of your family and even you4 entire village.
I also haven’t seen PeterthePunter so hope all is well with him.
@CarlottaVance hasn't been seen here for three months. Is it known why?
With regards to @CarlottaVance, I assume their departure was for the same reason as @Socrates: having concentrated so much on one subject (Scottish Gender Recognition for CV, Brexit for S) then once the objective was achieved there was no reason to continue posting
With regards to @Andy_JS, whilst it is too early to get worried he usually posts frequently and is one of the few to regularly post past midnight UK time, so his absence is noticable.
Re CarlottaVance her interests are much wider than what you say, and included the Channel Isles topically enough for this thread
I also haven’t seen PeterthePunter so hope all is well with him.
@CarlottaVance hasn't been seen here for three months. Is it known why?
With regards to @CarlottaVance, I assume their departure was for the same reason as @Socrates: having concentrated so much on one subject (Scottish Gender Recognition for CV, Brexit for S) then once the objective was achieved there was no reason to continue posting
With regards to @Andy_JS, whilst it is too early to get worried he usually posts frequently and is one of the few to regularly post past midnight UK time, so his absence is noticable.
@CarlottaVance posted on a far wider range of subjects that Gender Recognition. I found her contributions interesting. I hope all is well.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
A fair point
I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous
But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr
I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.
Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.
And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.
But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.
At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.
Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense
eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist
It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war
Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes
Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.
The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.
THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War
"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"
What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?
There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?
Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?
We know how we would have reacted because Germany did invade the Channel Islands. And the germans were evidently disgusted with the levels of compliance and collaboration from the locals. So thats what would have happened we would have collaborated.
The remaining islanders (many had fled especially from Guernsey and Alderney) recognised the infirmity of their situation.
An invasion of the British mainland would have been different. Presumably there would have been heavy fighting either close to the beaches or at the GHQ line - let's assume the British withdraw from your town after a brief struggle and the Germans march in with tanks and soldiers and set up a field HQ in the local town hall or some other building which hasn't been too badly damaged in the fighting. What can you, as an unarmed citizen, do?
You might have hope of a quick liberation - the famous Sandhurst study of a German invasion in September 1940 showed it failing and the Germans forced to withdraw or surrender after 72-96 hours. Oddly enough, the impact of the first significant military reversal might have been dramatic.
So your occupation might have been brief but enough time for the Germans to indulge in a little pillage and looting and the execution of anyone even thought to be resisting. The Germans had been told to believe "correctly" toward the British population (contrary to what had happened in Poland for example) but in the heat of battle, who knows?
Coincidentally I just watched the World at War episode on the occupation of Holland. I don't suppose we'd have been much different: mostly keep your head down, and hope this is brief (for the Dutch it turned out not to be).
I'm reminded of a quote by Eden: "It would be impertinent for a country that did not suffer occupation to carry a judgment on another one that suffered one."
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
When I first started working in higher education it was described to me as 'Care out of the community".
"Do you realise how much damage these people could do if the were out in the real world?!"
I kinda feel a lot of these stories are proving that old-timer right.
Yes. Anyone who finds themselves being a bit sub-Hitlerian when viewing a Stubbs or similar is a danger to the community. And probably themselves.
I knew somebody who knew somebody who owned a Stubbs. It was in the piano room. For most people with pianos the piano room is a cluttered mess. In this case the piano room held a piano. And a Stubbs. And that's it.
I think it's one of the few times I've ever been jealous of a rich person for reasons other than their wealth.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Point of order, Australian beef is absolutely excellent. I'm genuinely excited at the prospect of using it in my meat smoker rather than British beef.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
I also haven’t seen PeterthePunter so hope all is well with him.
@CarlottaVance hasn't been seen here for three months. Is it known why?
With regards to @CarlottaVance, I assume their departure was for the same reason as @Socrates: having concentrated so much on one subject (Scottish Gender Recognition for CV, Brexit for S) then once the objective was achieved there was no reason to continue posting
With regards to @Andy_JS, whilst it is too early to get worried he usually posts frequently and is one of the few to regularly post past midnight UK time, so his absence is noticable.
@CarlottaVance posted on a far wider range of subjects that Gender Recognition. I found her contributions interesting. I hope all is well.
In AI news, the cerebras wse3 has been revealed and it looks to me like a game changer. It's the first AI solution that I've seen which looks like a "brain" rather than a bunch of servers. I think they're going to sell out if their whole production allocation within a week.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Is it vegan?
I've never tried eating vegan food, but if I was starving I suppose I could eat a vegan as a last resort.
If puberty blockers are unsafe and irreversible, why does NICE still allow them to be used for precocious puberty?
Presumably because using them is better for the patient than not using them. Chemotherapy drugs actively harm patients, but the aim is to get rid of the cancer cells, so associated harms are tolerated.
Precisely correct and of course there's no medicine that is completely safe in terms of completely zero side effects under all circumstances. Indeed, puberty blockers have been used for precocious puberty since the 1980s without there being a noticed problem so I've got no problem calling puberty blockers safe in the same way as I would call driving 10 miles in a well-maintained car safe.
The problem there is with the NICE guidance is that they didn't have enough evidence of the benefit of the treatment, so that's why they are allowing clinical trials. Obviously the NHS does not want to pay for anything that's not proven to be effective so it's the right decision at this point of time but nothing in the NICE clinical panel decision claims that the treatment is unsafe.
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
A fair point
I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous
But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr
I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.
Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.
And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.
But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.
At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.
Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense
eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist
It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war
Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes
Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.
The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.
THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War
"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"
What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?
There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?
Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?
We know how we would have reacted because Germany did invade the Channel Islands. And the germans were evidently disgusted with the levels of compliance and collaboration from the locals. So thats what would have happened we would have collaborated.
The remaining islanders (many had fled especially from Guernsey and Alderney) recognised the infirmity of their situation.
An invasion of the British mainland would have been different. Presumably there would have been heavy fighting either close to the beaches or at the GHQ line - let's assume the British withdraw from your town after a brief struggle and the Germans march in with tanks and soldiers and set up a field HQ in the local town hall or some other building which hasn't been too badly damaged in the fighting. What can you, as an unarmed citizen, do?
You might have hope of a quick liberation - the famous Sandhurst study of a German invasion in September 1940 showed it failing and the Germans forced to withdraw or surrender after 72-96 hours. Oddly enough, the impact of the first significant military reversal might have been dramatic.
So your occupation might have been brief but enough time for the Germans to indulge in a little pillage and looting and the execution of anyone even thought to be resisting. The Germans had been told to believe "correctly" toward the British population (contrary to what had happened in Poland for example) but in the heat of battle, who knows?
Coincidentally I just watched the World at War episode on the occupation of Holland. I don't suppose we'd have been much different: mostly keep your head down, and hope this is brief (for the Dutch it turned out not to be).
I'm reminded of a quote by Eden: "It would be impertinent for a country that did not suffer occupation to carry a judgment on another one that suffered one."
In the book “Hitlers Army”, the author showed how behaviour in occupied countries went according to the position of the locals in the Nazi racial hierarchy. Because the German army was thoroughly steeped in Nazi beliefs.
So in Denmark, the Germans were almost deferential. Writing letters home about how clean and decent the locals were.
In France, they talked of the locals as small, dark and dirty.
In Russia, they talked of the locals as animals.
The behaviour of the occupations followed these beliefs.
In AI news, the cerebras wse3 has been revealed and it looks to me like a game changer. It's the first AI solution that I've seen which looks like a "brain" rather than a bunch of servers. I think they're going to sell out if their whole production allocation within a week.
Translating into English: The startup chip manufacturer Cerebras has revealed a new chip that is very fast. It is bigger than a dinner plate, about the size of an old LP. It goes really really fast and allows local usage of an AI.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Point of order, Australian beef is absolutely excellent. I'm genuinely excited at the prospect of using it in my meat smoker rather than British beef.
Aussie beef is indeed awesome. I can get a whole fillet out here for about £50-£60, 2.5kg.
To carry on the counterfactual - If Britain had been occupied, then when does Hitler invade Ireland? I cannot imagine the Germans allowing a neutral country on Britain's doorstep especially once the US have joined the war.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Is it vegan?
I've never tried eating vegan food, but if I was starving I suppose I could eat a vegan as a last resort.
A falsehood, given that lots of foods one eats regularly are vegan. Never eaten potatoes, or peas, or carrots?
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
Yes, plenty of evidence its better. I've tried both and I far prefer Aussie beef as do many others here.
What's a stupid idea is the parochial bullshit that we should only have what is domestically grown in this country. I guess you've never heard of Ricardo?
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Is it vegan?
I've never tried eating vegan food, but if I was starving I suppose I could eat a vegan as a last resort.
A falsehood, given that lots of foods one eats regularly are vegan. Never eaten potatoes, or peas, or carrots?
Don't bother, he literally only eats meat.
Motoring obsession, bomb Gaza to dust, detached house (no sanitation) for every Englishman. And people claim toxic masculinity doesn't exist.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Is it vegan?
I've never tried eating vegan food, but if I was starving I suppose I could eat a vegan as a last resort.
A falsehood, given that lots of foods one eats regularly are vegan. Never eaten potatoes, or peas, or carrots?
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
No, that's not true. If you are serious about smoking brisket you can't do it well with British beef as it's far too lean. Currently I get Spanish brisket but Australian would be better. British beef is great for burgers, stews and some kinds of steak, it is still a world class product for some kinds of food, there is no doubt. For what I want Australian beef is better and it doesn't come pumped full of growth hormone like US beef.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
No, that's not true. If you are serious about smoking brisket you can't do it well with British beef as it's far too lean. Currently I get Spanish brisket but Australian would be better. British beef is great for burgers, stews and some kinds of steak, it is still a world class product for some kinds of food, there is no doubt. For what I want Australian beef is better and it doesn't come pumped full of growth hormone like US beef.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
Yes, plenty of evidence its better. I've tried both and I far prefer Aussie beef as do many others here.
What's a stupid idea is the parochial bullshit that we should only have what is domestically grown in this country. I guess you've never heard of Ricardo?
Bart the bloke on the internet prefers Aussie beef. Bet he’s just never had good English beef, which is widely available.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
Yes, plenty of evidence its better. I've tried both and I far prefer Aussie beef as do many others here.
What's a stupid idea is the parochial bullshit that we should only have what is domestically grown in this country. I guess you've never heard of Ricardo?
Bart the bloke on the internet prefers Aussie beef. Bet he’s just never had good English beef, which is widely available.
I eat British beef regularly. And imported beef too.
But what's so special about British beef that we should only eat that? Why are you so closed-minded, parochial and intolerant that you are opposed to free trade and imports?
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Point of order, Australian beef is absolutely excellent. I'm genuinely excited at the prospect of using it in my meat smoker rather than British beef.
Which reminds me, that the winner of 2024 Itidarod sled-dog race in Alaska, secured his 6th victory despite being penalized 2 hours for improperly disposing of a moose carcass.
Said moose having collided with, and seriously injuring, one of his sled dogs. What judges ruled improper, was failure to ensure that moose remains were properly harvested and provided to local (mostly Native) people with a tradition of (and taste for) enjoying moose steaks, sausages, burgers, etc., etc.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Is it vegan?
I've never tried eating vegan food, but if I was starving I suppose I could eat a vegan as a last resort.
A falsehood, given that lots of foods one eats regularly are vegan. Never eaten potatoes, or peas, or carrots?
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
No, that's not true. If you are serious about smoking brisket you can't do it well with British beef as it's far too lean. Currently I get Spanish brisket but Australian would be better. British beef is great for burgers, stews and some kinds of steak, it is still a world class product for some kinds of food, there is no doubt. For what I want Australian beef is better and it doesn't come pumped full of growth hormone like US beef.
Best steak I ever had was in Namibia.
The best steak I've ever had was in Japan. Absolutely incredible, though at $350 per person I'd have been pretty annoyed if it wasn't. Not that I paid for it.
Does it surprise PBers to discover (via this very comment!) that Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene voted AGAINST banning TikTok, along with Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Does it surprise PBers to discover (via this very comment!) that Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene voted AGAINST banning TikTok, along with Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Me neither.
TikTok is a way that fringe ideas become mainstream. Useful to all four of those.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
No, that's not true. If you are serious about smoking brisket you can't do it well with British beef as it's far too lean. Currently I get Spanish brisket but Australian would be better. British beef is great for burgers, stews and some kinds of steak, it is still a world class product for some kinds of food, there is no doubt. For what I want Australian beef is better and it doesn't come pumped full of growth hormone like US beef.
Best steak I ever had was in Namibia.
The best steak I've ever had was in Japan. Absolutely incredible, though at $350 per person I'd have been pretty annoyed if it wasn't. Not that I paid for it.
The hyper lean beef thing reminds me of the ridiculous pursuit of ever dryer champagne.
Or the ever harsher flavoured coffee that then you see people pouring vast quantities of sugar into to make it taste the way they want.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
No, that's not true. If you are serious about smoking brisket you can't do it well with British beef as it's far too lean. Currently I get Spanish brisket but Australian would be better. British beef is great for burgers, stews and some kinds of steak, it is still a world class product for some kinds of food, there is no doubt. For what I want Australian beef is better and it doesn't come pumped full of growth hormone like US beef.
Best steak I ever had was in Namibia.
The best steak I've ever had was in Japan. Absolutely incredible, though at $350 per person I'd have been pretty annoyed if it wasn't. Not that I paid for it.
For me, the Glenfinnan House Hotel. A superb steak after a rather chilly boat trip on Loch Shiel.
Meloni seems to be getting economics right at least as far as bond holders are concerned.
Allie Hodgkins-Brown @AllieHBNews · 25m Friday’s International FINANCIAL Times: “Italian bond spread against Germany hits a two-year low” #TomorrowsPapersToday
So I posted some election scenarios earlier. Sunak has decided to bury himself in the Pet Sematary. So, his best case scenario is to cling to the helm of his zombie government until they get demolished. And his worst case is they try to oust him, fail, then he ends up absolutely finished but stuck in office with a disintegrating party below him.
If he survives, he’ll go to the end. If he’s ousted, PM Rehman Chisti will go to the end. But there is now a Clear and Present Danger that the over simply falls apart and we end up with an unscheduled election because they can’t carry on.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
No, that's not true. If you are serious about smoking brisket you can't do it well with British beef as it's far too lean. Currently I get Spanish brisket but Australian would be better. British beef is great for burgers, stews and some kinds of steak, it is still a world class product for some kinds of food, there is no doubt. For what I want Australian beef is better and it doesn't come pumped full of growth hormone like US beef.
Best steak I ever had was in Namibia.
The best steak I've ever had was in Japan. Absolutely incredible, though at $350 per person I'd have been pretty annoyed if it wasn't. Not that I paid for it.
The hyper lean beef thing reminds me of the ridiculous pursuit of ever dryer champagne.
Or the ever harsher flavoured coffee that then you see people pouring vast quantities of sugar into to make it taste the way they want.
I’m not sure anyone’s pursuing hyper-lean beef are they? If anything the opposite, they all want wagyu-style marbled beef.
British and Irish beef, which is the majority of what we eat here, is pretty lean largely because of its diet and to some extent the breeds used (though I think Australians have a lot of Herefords). French beef too - Charolais is very lean. Ideal for onglet or a boeuf bourgignon, not so great for a big juicy steak or a smoked brisket. Just a different meat from the softer fattier versions elsewhere and best treated as such.
So I posted some election scenarios earlier. Sunak has decided to bury himself in the Pet Sematary. So, his best case scenario is to cling to the helm of his zombie government until they get demolished. And his worst case is they try to oust him, fail, then he ends up absolutely finished but stuck in office with a disintegrating party below him.
If he survives, he’ll go to the end. If he’s ousted, PM Rehman Chisti will go to the end. But there is now a Clear and Present Danger that the over simply falls apart and we end up with an unscheduled election because they can’t carry on.
Fun fun fun!
Yep, it’s the chaotic runout scenario. Rishi just put his hand out and shouted “no, stay”. The rest of his party are weighing up whether to run anyway.
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
Yes, plenty of evidence its better. I've tried both and I far prefer Aussie beef as do many others here.
What's a stupid idea is the parochial bullshit that we should only have what is domestically grown in this country. I guess you've never heard of Ricardo?
Bart the bloke on the internet prefers Aussie beef. Bet he’s just never had good English beef, which is widely available.
I eat British beef regularly. And imported beef too.
But what's so special about British beef that we should only eat that? Why are you so closed-minded, parochial and intolerant that you are opposed to free trade and imports?
I was just in Australia for almost a month, ate their beef frequently and it was fine. Not as good as Argentina's but just as good as ours. We shouldn't give in to protectionist whining from farmers, who are champions at using sentimental, xenophobic drivel to pick consumers' pockets.
If it's better value, people will buy it and our own product will have to improve. If it's worse, people won't buy and what's the problem?
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 2h In 2017, Theresa May decided not to call a general election to coincide with the locals on May 4… and then held one five weeks later on June 8. Just saying! 🥶
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 2h In 2017, Theresa May decided not to call a general election to coincide with the locals on May 4… and then held one five weeks later on June 8. Just saying! 🥶
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 2h In 2017, Theresa May decided not to call a general election to coincide with the locals on May 4… and then held one five weeks later on June 8. Just saying! 🥶
She was twenty points ahead in the polls, not twenty points behind.
She went on a walking holiday, which is great for clearing your mind and letting you think big thoughts (not all of which are necessarily good thoughts in the cold light of day, but if you've already called an election before you realise that, ooops!)
She was twenty points ahead in the polls, not twenty points behind.
She didn't have to worry about awful local election results derailing the election campaign, because SHE WAS TWENTY POINTS AHEAD IN THE POLLS, NOT TWENTY POINTS BEHIND.
So I posted some election scenarios earlier. Sunak has decided to bury himself in the Pet Sematary. So, his best case scenario is to cling to the helm of his zombie government until they get demolished. And his worst case is they try to oust him, fail, then he ends up absolutely finished but stuck in office with a disintegrating party below him.
If he survives, he’ll go to the end. If he’s ousted, PM Rehman Chisti will go to the end. But there is now a Clear and Present Danger that the over simply falls apart and we end up with an unscheduled election because they can’t carry on.
Fun fun fun!
Yep, it’s the chaotic runout scenario. Rishi just put his hand out and shouted “no, stay”. The rest of his party are weighing up whether to run anyway.
Run to the hills! Then again, I think this Tory party would run in every direction at once. Whilst going on the media to insist they are moving as one and don’t back Labour they would run in every direction as once.
Meta's chief AI wallah tells Musk he is wrong. Sorry @Leon
Yann LeCun
@ylecun · 4h No. If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.
But we still don't have fully autonomous, reliable self-driving, even though we (you) have millions of hours of *labeled* training data.
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 2h In 2017, Theresa May decided not to call a general election to coincide with the locals on May 4… and then held one five weeks later on June 8. Just saying! 🥶
(Sidenote: This was later deemed by her inner circle to have been a great mistake. Tories crushed the local elections, then she lost the Commons majority. They wonder to this day what would have happened if both were held in May.)
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
So we've got 17,000 tonnes of good quality, affordable beef?
Fantastic news for consumers.
I see still avoiding the vote leave lies made to UK farmers l
Is he responsible for the claims of Vote Leave? People did not agree with every claim made even if they back one or the other side.
If we'd had no imports of Australian beef, Nico would be squealing about the starving masses who were told they'd get cheap food by the perfidious Brexiteers. File all of his commentary on post-Brexit developments in the bin.
The Prime Minister should stop squatting in Downing Street and give the country what it desperately needs - a chance for change with a Labour Government. 🌹
Meta's chief AI wallah tells Musk he is wrong. Sorry @Leon
Yann LeCun
@ylecun · 4h No. If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.
But we still don't have fully autonomous, reliable self-driving, even though we (you) have millions of hours of *labeled* training data.
That’s Yann LeCun who publicly said that text-to-video was impossible with current technology, 2 days before OpenAI released Sora, completely humiliating him
He’s an idiot. A great boffin in his time, but that time is past
Well, they're probably not harmless, but surely when you stop taking them puberty happens.
(I used to know a girl whose mother was desperate for her to get on the England gymnastics team and who managed to persuade a doctor to prescribe puberty blockers. She is not very nice about the medical profession.)
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 2h In 2017, Theresa May decided not to call a general election to coincide with the locals on May 4… and then held one five weeks later on June 8. Just saying! 🥶
She was twenty points ahead in the polls, not twenty points behind.
She went on a walking holiday, which is great for clearing your mind and letting you think big thoughts (not all of which are necessarily good thoughts in the cold light of day, but if you've already called an election before you realise that, ooops!)
She was twenty points ahead in the polls, not twenty points behind.
She didn't have to worry about awful local election results derailing the election campaign, because SHE WAS TWENTY POINTS AHEAD IN THE POLLS, NOT TWENTY POINTS BEHIND.
So I posted some election scenarios earlier. Sunak has decided to bury himself in the Pet Sematary. So, his best case scenario is to cling to the helm of his zombie government until they get demolished. And his worst case is they try to oust him, fail, then he ends up absolutely finished but stuck in office with a disintegrating party below him.
If he survives, he’ll go to the end. If he’s ousted, PM Rehman Chisti will go to the end. But there is now a Clear and Present Danger that the over simply falls apart and we end up with an unscheduled election because they can’t carry on.
Fun fun fun!
Yep, it’s the chaotic runout scenario. Rishi just put his hand out and shouted “no, stay”. The rest of his party are weighing up whether to run anyway.
I'm thinking they can fit in two more PMs before election day.
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 2h In 2017, Theresa May decided not to call a general election to coincide with the locals on May 4… and then held one five weeks later on June 8. Just saying! 🥶
Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !
Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.
UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !
And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .
As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
Why the fuck are we importing beef from the other side of the world? What’s wrong with our own beef, rather than a load of probable shite from Australia.
Why are you so against free trade?
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
Is there any evidence that it’s better? I get my (English and Scottish) beef from the Ginger Pig, and from my local butcher. There is plenty of good beef here. I barbecue a lot. On not a single day’s smoking and grilling have I said “oh if only this had travelled 11,000 miles”.
What a stupid idea.
No, that's not true. If you are serious about smoking brisket you can't do it well with British beef as it's far too lean. Currently I get Spanish brisket but Australian would be better. British beef is great for burgers, stews and some kinds of steak, it is still a world class product for some kinds of food, there is no doubt. For what I want Australian beef is better and it doesn't come pumped full of growth hormone like US beef.
There's plenty of hormone free American beef: Snake Eye Farms' American Wagyu is a personal favourite.
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 2h In 2017, Theresa May decided not to call a general election to coincide with the locals on May 4… and then held one five weeks later on June 8. Just saying! 🥶
(Sidenote: This was later deemed by her inner circle to have been a great mistake. Tories crushed the local elections, then she lost the Commons majority. They wonder to this day what would have happened if both were held in May.)
Yes it’s quite feasible alternative history. 150 seat majority in 2017, Brexit through though not without its controversies and backbench whining, and probably based on a slightly closer alignment to single market. Corbyn out but replaced by a soft left candidate like Nandy.
Another general election anticipated for 2021 but delayed due to Covid and finally done that autumn. Tory reduced majority of 40ish. Now losing popularity quite rapidly after inflation and economic stagnation, and the same pressure from the right on immigration. Tories perhaps 5 points behind Labour.
An Angus steak at Gleneagles hotel A Hereford steak at Heston Blumenthal’s Dinner A steak at Dubya Bush’s favourite steakhouse in Austin Texas A ribeye at Cabana Las Lilas, Buenos Aires A wagyu a few weeks ago at the Rosewood, Phnom Penh (luxury food in Phnom Penh is insanely good)
To carry on the counterfactual - If Britain had been occupied, then when does Hitler invade Ireland? I cannot imagine the Germans allowing a neutral country on Britain's doorstep especially once the US have joined the war.
To carry on the counterfactual - If Britain had been occupied, then when does Hitler invade Ireland? I cannot imagine the Germans allowing a neutral country on Britain's doorstep especially once the US have joined the war.
They allowed both Spain and Sweden.
Neither of which could be used as a staging post for a huge American invasion force.
Meta's chief AI wallah tells Musk he is wrong. Sorry @Leon
Yann LeCun
@ylecun · 4h No. If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.
But we still don't have fully autonomous, reliable self-driving, even though we (you) have millions of hours of *labeled* training data.
Meta's chief AI wallah tells Musk he is wrong. Sorry @Leon
Yann LeCun
@ylecun · 4h No. If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.
But we still don't have fully autonomous, reliable self-driving, even though we (you) have millions of hours of *labeled* training data.
An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.
In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.
The way to prevent them is not to have wars.
The problem here is that the war crimes very clearly have cover from the top. It's not just about an individual soldier or an individual commander; it's systematic, and motivated by other reasons than defeating Hamas.
Before you can say that, you have to be able to define, very clearly, what the war crimes are.
Not the law in this conflict. The law explicitly and quite clearly at the end of WWII said that starvation is legal. Multiple courts ruled it so.
The only thing that might say otherwise is as that link says Protocol II, however Israel (and many of Israel's neighbours) have not signed or ratified that treaty so it doesn't apply to them any more than the European Convention of Human Rights applies to Canada.
It is only legal to blockade areas not controlled by your own armed forces, but not areas under their effective control. As most of the North of Gaza and much of central Gaza is currently under IDF control it is not contested territory but rather under occupation. As such the IDF has legal responsibility to provide food and water to the people there and also to support civil order.
If the IDF were to require the civilians currently in Rafah to move to areas in Central Gaza under IDF control then they would have a legal obligation to provide for these people too.
Meta's chief AI wallah tells Musk he is wrong. Sorry @Leon
Yann LeCun
@ylecun · 4h No. If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.
But we still don't have fully autonomous, reliable self-driving, even though we (you) have millions of hours of *labeled* training data.
Argentine steaks are really good. As is their Malbec
It’s another example of a country happily fulfilling glib and simplistic preconceptions, for which we recently tried to conjure a compound German noun
Cf Colombian coffee
Cf Italians all actually being well dressed Everything being big in America Swiss products being precision engineered Guinness actually tasting better in Ireland, for reasons I’ve never fathomed Finland being full of saunas
Meta's chief AI wallah tells Musk he is wrong. Sorry @Leon
Yann LeCun
@ylecun · 4h No. If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.
But we still don't have fully autonomous, reliable self-driving, even though we (you) have millions of hours of *labeled* training data.
Comments
Ultimately I don't think it will work out to Israel's advantage. Causing, or even failing to help out with, starvation is something that people remember with bitterness against you for centuries. Consider the Irish Potato famine, for example.
Indeed, I fear that this may be a fair description of Sunak's level of engagement. Had Boris Johnson been able to remain as PM more might well have been done.
"Do you realise how much damage these people could do if the were out in the real world?!"
I kinda feel a lot of these stories are proving that old-timer right.
Chemotherapy drugs actively harm patients, but the aim is to get rid of the cancer cells, so associated harms are tolerated.
An invasion of the British mainland would have been different. Presumably there would have been heavy fighting either close to the beaches or at the GHQ line - let's assume the British withdraw from your town after a brief struggle and the Germans march in with tanks and soldiers and set up a field HQ in the local town hall or some other building which hasn't been too badly damaged in the fighting. What can you, as an unarmed citizen, do?
You might have hope of a quick liberation - the famous Sandhurst study of a German invasion in September 1940 showed it failing and the Germans forced to withdraw or surrender after 72-96 hours. Oddly enough, the impact of the first significant military reversal might have been dramatic.
So your occupation might have been brief but enough time for the Germans to indulge in a little pillage and looting and the execution of anyone even thought to be resisting. The Germans had been told to believe "correctly" toward the British population (contrary to what had happened in Poland for example) but in the heat of battle, who knows?
If others want to help out with the war zone, then they can, and if you want pressure you can, but its only a crime if its against the law and its not against the law there.
The pre-Protocols law still applies there which means blockades, including of food and water, are explicitly legal.
And yet tales of the French resistance are very mixed indeed. Many people would get their heads down, hope for the best and after a time enjoy drinking a cup of tea with that nice Hans from Magdeburg.
It takes a lot of courage to be an active resister when the consequences could include not just your own death, but those of your family and even you4 entire village.
Never forget just how warped the Nazis were.
With regards to @Peter_the_Punter , a long-standing PBer he was saddened by the announcement of @OGH's condition and felt it unseemly to continue posting: his post explaining this is here: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4688274/#Comment_4688274
With regards to @Andy_JS, whilst it is too early to get worried he usually posts frequently and is one of the few to regularly post past midnight UK time, so his absence is noticable.
Weapons and a lot of fighting age men had left already to add to the British army.
Very hard to smuggle in weapons and explosives as the beaches here make the beaches in Normandy look open and inviting at the time with the level of defences.
Also total German control over food - people were starving after D-day until the Red Cross ships started being able to supply.
The UK had huge plans for defence in a German invasion and massive stockpiles of arms were already placed around the country and strategies for in depth defence which would have made getting control of the UK an absolute bloodbath. Plenty of land for resistance to escape to.
There had been a big training programme for resistance fighters and so not in a situation like France where nobody expected what happened and no real plans and prep were made.
I'm reminded of a quote by Eden: "It would be impertinent for a country that did not suffer occupation to carry a judgment on another one that suffered one."
I think it's one of the few times I've ever been jealous of a rich person for reasons other than their wealth.
If Australian beef is better quality and/or cheaper, why the hell should we not be eating it?
Especially since the cost of international shipping (both environmental and economic) is absolutely miniscule due to the scales involved.
The problem there is with the NICE guidance is that they didn't have enough evidence of the benefit of the treatment, so that's why they are allowing clinical trials. Obviously the NHS does not want to pay for anything that's not proven to be effective so it's the right decision at this point of time but nothing in the NICE clinical panel decision claims that the treatment is unsafe.
So in Denmark, the Germans were almost deferential. Writing letters home about how clean and decent the locals were.
In France, they talked of the locals as small, dark and dirty.
In Russia, they talked of the locals as animals.
The behaviour of the occupations followed these beliefs.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ai-startup-cerebras-unveils-the-largest-chip-yet-for-generative-ai/
What a stupid idea.
Plenty of time now to parachute someone in.
What's a stupid idea is the parochial bullshit that we should only have what is domestically grown in this country. I guess you've never heard of Ricardo?
Motoring obsession, bomb Gaza to dust, detached house (no sanitation) for every Englishman. And people claim toxic masculinity doesn't exist.
But what's so special about British beef that we should only eat that? Why are you so closed-minded, parochial and intolerant that you are opposed to free trade and imports?
Said moose having collided with, and seriously injuring, one of his sled dogs. What judges ruled improper, was failure to ensure that moose remains were properly harvested and provided to local (mostly Native) people with a tradition of (and taste for) enjoying moose steaks, sausages, burgers, etc., etc.
Me neither.
Checking tomorrow's weather forecast:
Met Office: Dry
BBC: Wet
I'm not asking for 10 days out, just tomorrow morning, ffs.
Or the ever harsher flavoured coffee that then you see people pouring vast quantities of sugar into to make it taste the way they want.
Allie Hodgkins-Brown
@AllieHBNews
·
25m
Friday’s International FINANCIAL Times: “Italian bond spread against Germany hits a two-year low” #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1768383651580977423
If he survives, he’ll go to the end. If he’s ousted, PM Rehman Chisti will go to the end. But there is now a Clear and Present Danger that the over simply falls apart and we end up with an unscheduled election because they can’t carry on.
Fun fun fun!
@lewis_goodall
·
2h
“Will there be a June election” discourse to begin in 3…2….1…
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1768349404224782844
British and Irish beef, which is the majority of what we eat here, is pretty lean largely because of its diet and to some extent the breeds used (though I think Australians have a lot of Herefords). French beef too - Charolais is very lean. Ideal for onglet or a boeuf bourgignon, not so great for a big juicy steak or a smoked brisket. Just a different meat from the softer fattier versions elsewhere and best treated as such.
https://x.com/shoshanade/status/1768375915623350299?s=20
If it's better value, people will buy it and our own product will have to improve. If it's worse, people won't buy and what's the problem?
@benrileysmith
·
2h
In 2017, Theresa May decided not to call a general election to coincide with the locals on May 4… and then held one five weeks later on June 8. Just saying! 🥶
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1768354251833540826
6 June or bust?
Looks like I got it wrong on 2 May.
I think Rishi has got it wrong too to let it go on further .
She was twenty points ahead in the polls, not twenty points behind.
She went on a walking holiday, which is great for clearing your mind and letting you think big thoughts (not all of which are necessarily good thoughts in the cold light of day, but if you've already called an election before you realise that, ooops!)
She was twenty points ahead in the polls, not twenty points behind.
She didn't have to worry about awful local election results derailing the election campaign, because SHE WAS TWENTY POINTS AHEAD IN THE POLLS, NOT TWENTY POINTS BEHIND.
Yann LeCun
@ylecun
·
4h
No.
If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.
But we still don't have fully autonomous, reliable self-driving, even though we (you) have millions of hours of *labeled* training data.
https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1768330345059872931
(Sidenote: This was later deemed by her inner circle to have been a great mistake. Tories crushed the local elections, then she lost the Commons majority. They wonder to this day what would have happened if both were held in May.)
The Prime Minister should stop squatting in Downing Street and give the country what it desperately needs - a chance for change with a Labour Government. 🌹
Full statement below.
He’s an idiot. A great boffin in his time, but that time is past
(I used to know a girl whose mother was desperate for her to get on the England gymnastics team and who managed to persuade a doctor to prescribe puberty blockers. She is not very nice about the medical profession.)
BREAKING: live scenes in Westminster this evening
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1768350862668108063?s=20
Another general election anticipated for 2021 but delayed due to Covid and finally done that autumn. Tory reduced majority of 40ish. Now losing popularity quite rapidly after inflation and economic stagnation, and the same pressure from the right on immigration. Tories perhaps 5 points behind Labour.
An Angus steak at Gleneagles hotel
A Hereford steak at Heston Blumenthal’s Dinner
A steak at Dubya Bush’s favourite steakhouse in Austin Texas
A ribeye at Cabana Las Lilas, Buenos Aires
A wagyu a few weeks ago at the Rosewood, Phnom Penh (luxury food in Phnom Penh is insanely good)
https://youtu.be/xq4z_Vng8wA?si=-QNVA7PS25l4v9TY
It’s another example of a country happily fulfilling glib and simplistic preconceptions, for which we recently tried to conjure a compound German noun
Cf Colombian coffee
That should end the debate. Well said.
If the IDF were to require the civilians currently in Rafah to move to areas in Central Gaza under IDF control then they would have a legal obligation to provide for these people too.
https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/occupied-territory/#:~:text=In international law, a territory,end of the nineteenth century.
Everything being big in America
Swiss products being precision engineered
Guinness actually tasting better in Ireland, for reasons I’ve never fathomed
Finland being full of saunas
A 17 year old whose prefrontal cortex isn't even fully developed can learn to drive with 20 hours of training.
AI can't learn to drive with millions of hours of training.
The idea AI is smarter than humans is facetious bullshit. It might know more, but its not smarter.
He’ll call the election for May 2nd.
Frank Hester received £135 million of government contracts....
Pass the sick bag Alice.........