Best wishes to Kate - hoping she makes a full recovery. Cancer really is a horrible, horrible illness.
At the moment I'm slightly in awe of her. Not too many years ago I had a similar diagnosis. An unrelated blood test just before a work trip to the Seychelles and my world was turned upside down. I can remember the sensations at that time like it was yesterday. I can best describe it as a roller coaster that goes down and never bottoms out.
I decided to tell no one because I couldn't see how it would help. it's the loneliest place in the world and there's no clear way of dealing with it.
What it must be like to have to face it with the glare of publicity I can hardly imagine. You feel like everyone's looking at you anyway.... She might well recover but I doubt anything will feel quite the same again.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Millions more? How do you see that happening if Ukraine agreed to be annexed?
The difficulty with any madman wanting to kill people here in the UK is that the government have made it rather hard to gain access to guns, or the materials to make bombs. Even the anarchists' cookbook has allegedly been altered.
But if you can access such things, you don't need much 'skill' or training to cause mayhem. The key is to prevent access.
Wow you really have no idea, if I wanted a gun it would take me far less than 24 hours to get one and ammunition for it. They are not as hard to get as you seem to think
I didn't say *you* couldn't access a gun if *you* wanted; the problems with criminals and rentable guns or replicas are well known and publicised. I know two people with gun licenses, and would have no idea where to get hold of an illegal one if I was to go ballistic. And those two people's guns are secure.
But that's a different matter. And there's a large difference between a handgun and an AK-47.
Just totted up numbers, I would say I know at least 12 people who could introduce me to an illegal gun supplier and not talking about replica's or rentable guns and guns ranging from a pistol to an uzi. I suspect most of us at the lower end of society would be about the same figures. Most of us don't have a need for a gun so we don't bother.
People who *claim* they could introduce you. How many of those actually could, and how many of those would get you a replica that could blow your hand off, or has already been used in a shooting that you get the blame for if you're caught with it...
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
By listening to the news and finding the facts, not revelling in violent imagery.
It's moderately warm, and the sky is a sort of weird blue-ish colour. Plus, when you step outside there's not thousands of gallons of water landing on top of you the way there usually is.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
It does seem bizarre that anyone would think it was a good idea to have such a cliff edge in entitlement, rather than to phase it in, but we have all sorts of similar ugly artifacts all around the tax code and public policy. Does no-one involved in creating public policy give a damn about such arbitrary impacts?
The evidence is that the number of such cliff edges increases over time, in tax and benefits.
Se either
1) they don’t give a fuck 2) that they do and actively create them for the effects they produce.
At a guess, I'd assume that clean breaks are more straightforward and cheaper to administer than gradual phasing. In the WASPI case, it might've been less iniquitous to ramp up the retirement age by, say, six months per year for ten years to achieve parity, but there was no interest in such complexities.
And we're nowhere near the end of tinkering with the state pension, of course. It's completely unaffordable, but since it's also politically impossible to cut or cap existing pensioner benefits, or to claw back the costs from better off oldies through property taxes, that means rationing for future recipients. More hikes in the pension age, means testing, or probably a combination of the two.
A 10% rise in income tax combined with a 10% cut in national insurance would do a lot to make pensions more affordable and not cost a single penny from people's PAYE wages.
The current reductions in NI are covered by the fiscal drag of the income tax rates.
So, actually, the current chancellor is doing what you advocate.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Millions more? How do you see that happening if Ukraine agreed to be annexed?
Population 'redistribution', amongst other things. A redistribution where many disappear. As is already occurring in the occupied areas. Putin will want revenge, as Stalin and others have throughout history. You also assume that the government capitulating means the population will: look at the Free French or Polish for why that's wrong.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
By listening to the news and finding the facts, not revelling in violent imagery.
I think you'll find that blind people in particular have no opinions. On anything. Poor souls.
The big story today is the WASPI women and the govt's reaction to them. Curiously similar to the deliberate blocking of the deserved compensation for the victims of the tainted blood and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure if these are a cause of the Cons collapse or just another symptom of why that collapse has happened. There are too many in No 10 that seem to have no idea what they are doing.
Come on, it's night and day compared to those two particular scandals. My mum was born in 1956 and I'd known for donkey's years her state pension would be at the age of 66.
To quote the acronym in full, Whining About State Pensions is Irritating. It's frankly down to some highly impressive lobbying that this case is even being given the time of day.
Obviously, this is all anecdotage, but my wife is one of the very small group who were badly affected, twice. She was born in January 1955, and saw her retirement age raised from 60 to 64, and then again to 66. She is still very friendly with girls from her class at school - those born in Sept - Dec 1954 have received six years' more pension than Milady Carp. She feels that the first move was understandable (equalising retirement ages) but the second was unpardonable in view of the first rise. Another point concerns those women of that particular "certain age" who were divorced and agreed to a financial settlement before the rises took place. It seems that a number of lawyers and judges might have been ignorant of the consequences of the change, and advised clients to accept settlements that might now be regarded as sub-optimal.
She got treated entirely equally to men who were born on the same date as her.
How is that "badly affected" at all. It just wasn't incredibly generous as others were, but that's how ending inequality works.
Women of any age who took any financial settlement had every opportunity to work until they reached retirement age, did they not?
Well, I am the same age as her an she was certainly treated differently from me. My pension age was raised once - from 65 to 66. No complaints there. But it wasn't raised twice, and it wasn't raised by six years.
You had a retirement age of 66. She had a retirement age of 66.
She was treated the same as you.
No. She made reasonable plans to draw her pension at 60, as she had been told she could do. Then her entitlement changed. Then it changed again. That's harsh. I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened, but the way it has been implemented has been unreasonable. Obviously, "Put not your faith in Princes" and all that, but if the State says that something is going to happen, then they might be allowed to change their mind once, but not twice.
She was told in 1995
So she was 41, had been working for 20 years and had 20 years to make an adjustment to her prior plans
The difficulty with any madman wanting to kill people here in the UK is that the government have made it rather hard to gain access to guns, or the materials to make bombs. Even the anarchists' cookbook has allegedly been altered.
But if you can access such things, you don't need much 'skill' or training to cause mayhem. The key is to prevent access.
Wow you really have no idea, if I wanted a gun it would take me far less than 24 hours to get one and ammunition for it. They are not as hard to get as you seem to think
I didn't say *you* couldn't access a gun if *you* wanted; the problems with criminals and rentable guns or replicas are well known and publicised. I know two people with gun licenses, and would have no idea where to get hold of an illegal one if I was to go ballistic. And those two people's guns are secure.
But that's a different matter. And there's a large difference between a handgun and an AK-47.
Just totted up numbers, I would say I know at least 12 people who could introduce me to an illegal gun supplier and not talking about replica's or rentable guns and guns ranging from a pistol to an uzi. I suspect most of us at the lower end of society would be about the same figures. Most of us don't have a need for a gun so we don't bother.
People who *claim* they could introduce you. How many of those actually could, and how many of those would get you a replica that could blow your hand off, or has already been used in a shooting that you get the blame for if you're caught with it...
I totted up people I would trust. Its part of real life now. More and more pubs turn into gastro pubs and real pubs where we can actually afford to drink get smaller in numbers means that we are mingling with people we once would of avoided in a lot of cases. Having said that I always chose to drink in biker bars in any case and have friends that are both HA and slaves for example. Then add in the drug dealers, the various eastern european gangs and yes guns are easy
All kicking off in Russia. Presumably will be blamed on Ukraine (which seems unlikely), followed by bloodcurdling nuclear threats.
The US issued a warning about a terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago. How did they know?
They've been pretty good on Russian intel (see the 2022 invasion).
Assuming this isn't a false flag, which seems unlikely given Russia is not looking for an excuse for an anti-terror operation, and was not a lone wolf (reports suggest multiple gunmen), it's hard to think of likely possibilities:
- Russian anti-Putin forces (unlikely, they've not targeted civilians to date) - Chechens (unlikely, they've been very quiet for a long time) - Ukrainians (unlikely - see anti-Putin dissidents, and given Ukraine relies on Western goodwill) - Syrian or Iranian rebels hitting at a country supporting their regime (unlikely, they're more likely to focus on their own leaders) - Russian ultra-nationalists who want a white Slavic Russia (maybe, but why target this rock concert?)
Usually when there's a terrorist attack there's an obvious culprit, even if that isn't always the actual one. Not this time
But Kasparov thinks it's false flag to justify mobilisation.
That's true and yet I chatted to my Irish wife about this earlier and she said something along the lines of, "imagine having so many people who don't like you they you don't know who is responsible for such an attack."
It's something of a feature of an imperial power that they make themselves lots of enemies. Russia have been bombing the shit out of Syria for years, and obviously plenty of other Muslim places before that, so Islamic terrorism wouldn't exactly be a surprise.
Actually despite having all the hallmarks of a Putin mandated false flag I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this was carried out by Ukraine's loose cannon security service. They appear stupid enough to do it.
Kinzinger suggests Johnson make deal on Ukraine to save Speakership
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4550388-kinzinger-johnson-deal-ukraine-speakership/ Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) suggested that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) should make a deal on aid to Ukraine to save his Speakership, as the threat of a motion to vacate loomed over Johnson’s head Friday. “Is she gonna try a motion to vacate? I don’t know,” Kinzinger said on “CNN Newsroom,” in an interview with anchor Jim Acosta, referring to an earlier apparent threat from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to file a motion to oust Johnson. “In a way, I think it could be interesting if she does, to see if Mike Johnson just says, ‘OK, fine, that’s delayed,’ ’cause you can delay that motion to vacate. ‘And by the way, since you’re doing that, the next bill I’m putting on the floor before we go to recess, is the Senate foreign aid bill,’” Kinzinger continued. “That would be an interesting reaction, and then the Democrats could frankly come in and save Johnson on a motion to vacate.” Greene later did file a motion to oust Johnson as Speaker, which came in opposition to his support for a bipartisan spending deal making its way through Congress. The Georgia Republican said she would not trigger a vote on ousting Johnson. “Today, I filed a motion to vacate after Speaker Johnson has betrayed our conference and broken our rules,” Greene told reporters on the steps of the Capitol...
The difficulty with any madman wanting to kill people here in the UK is that the government have made it rather hard to gain access to guns, or the materials to make bombs. Even the anarchists' cookbook has allegedly been altered.
But if you can access such things, you don't need much 'skill' or training to cause mayhem. The key is to prevent access.
Wow you really have no idea, if I wanted a gun it would take me far less than 24 hours to get one and ammunition for it. They are not as hard to get as you seem to think
I didn't say *you* couldn't access a gun if *you* wanted; the problems with criminals and rentable guns or replicas are well known and publicised. I know two people with gun licenses, and would have no idea where to get hold of an illegal one if I was to go ballistic. And those two people's guns are secure.
But that's a different matter. And there's a large difference between a handgun and an AK-47.
Just totted up numbers, I would say I know at least 12 people who could introduce me to an illegal gun supplier and not talking about replica's or rentable guns and guns ranging from a pistol to an uzi. I suspect most of us at the lower end of society would be about the same figures. Most of us don't have a need for a gun so we don't bother.
People who *claim* they could introduce you. How many of those actually could, and how many of those would get you a replica that could blow your hand off, or has already been used in a shooting that you get the blame for if you're caught with it...
I totted up people I would trust. Its part of real life now. More and more pubs turn into gastro pubs and real pubs where we can actually afford to drink get smaller in numbers means that we are mingling with people we once would of avoided in a lot of cases. Having said that I always chose to drink in biker bars in any case and have friends that are both HA and slaves for example. Then add in the drug dealers, the various eastern european gangs and yes guns are easy
I refer the honourable gentleman (who thinks he has very dishonourable friends) to my previous answer.
That’s doesn’t mean it’s a false flag. Necessarily. That could just be Putin exploiting an actual terror attack. If it’s happened anyway much better to blame it on Ukraine, given the circs
You think there would be white vans, with Ukrainian plates, just hanging around in central Moscow?
That’s doesn’t mean it’s a false flag. Necessarily. That could just be Putin exploiting an actual terror attack. If it’s happened anyway much better to blame it on Ukraine, given the circs
You think there would be white vans, with Ukrainian plates, just hanging around in central Moscow?
Probably left there by an Albanian taxi driver. You know what they're like.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Millions more? How do you see that happening if Ukraine agreed to be annexed?
Population 'redistribution', amongst other things. A redistribution where many disappear. As is already occurring in the occupied areas. Putin will want revenge, as Stalin and others have throughout history. You also assume that the government capitulating means the population will: look at the Free French or Polish for why that's wrong.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
I watch news; I try to avoid the gory. bloody stuff that is apparently the only way you get tumescent without little blue pills or paying girls.
It's actually quite easy to avoid the gory stuff. And if you think it's going to be gory, skip over it.
You revel in it.
No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did
I shall henceforth treat all your opinions with this as vital context. That you haven’t got an actual fucking clue what you’re talking about because you never watch news that might be scary
My family used to have a cairn terrier like this. On fireworks night we would put him in the wardrobe surrounded by scatter cushions
All kicking off in Russia. Presumably will be blamed on Ukraine (which seems unlikely), followed by bloodcurdling nuclear threats.
The US issued a warning about a terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago. How did they know?
They've been pretty good on Russian intel (see the 2022 invasion).
Assuming this isn't a false flag, which seems unlikely given Russia is not looking for an excuse for an anti-terror operation, and was not a lone wolf (reports suggest multiple gunmen), it's hard to think of likely possibilities:
- Russian anti-Putin forces (unlikely, they've not targeted civilians to date) - Chechens (unlikely, they've been very quiet for a long time) - Ukrainians (unlikely - see anti-Putin dissidents, and given Ukraine relies on Western goodwill) - Syrian or Iranian rebels hitting at a country supporting their regime (unlikely, they're more likely to focus on their own leaders) - Russian ultra-nationalists who want a white Slavic Russia (maybe, but why target this rock concert?)
Usually when there's a terrorist attack there's an obvious culprit, even if that isn't always the actual one. Not this time
But Kasparov thinks it's false flag to justify mobilisation.
That’s doesn’t mean it’s a false flag. Necessarily. That could just be Putin exploiting an actual terror attack. If it’s happened anyway much better to blame it on Ukraine, given the circs
You think there would be white vans, with Ukrainian plates, just hanging around in central Moscow?
I love the brazenness of it: if you were a Ukrainian terrorist, do you think you might spend five minutes switching out your numberplate?
Translation: whether it is the Ukrainians or someone else, it is in the interests of the Russian government to blame it on them.
The fruit is identical to that of Aspidosperma Spruceanum found in Colombia
But Wiki insists this is a flowering plant not a tree. Can a tree be a flowering plant?
Come on, this is exciting
Many trees are flowering plants, more technically angiosperms. Think of horse chestnuts, magnolias, etc. etc. Tho lots of trees have small green flowers that are not very noticeable, e.g. oak.
But quite a lot are gymnosperms such as conifers.
In any case, 'tree' tends to mean "****ing big plant a lot taller than me" so it's really a habit of growth rather than a kind of plant. There were some really wierd trees in days of yore, coal forests (closest relativce today perhaps and even further back, into the Devonian.
So “tree” isn’t a technical scientific term at all?
In which case I think this is Aspidosperma Spruceanum. It’s rather lovely. Long slender ash grey trunk and verdant green palmate leaves. It whispers sweetly in the jungle breeze. I can just hear the Caribbean waves toiling in the distance
I could get into this botany lark
I think the same is true for 'Fish' as well. It is certainly true for types of fish. For instance there is no such thing as a sardine, whitebait or bream. They are just a bunch of types of fish that look similar although may not be related at all.
I wonder which Ent cares for these?
Tolkien has quite an enjoyable passage about the appearance of Ents related to the particular varieties of trees they look after.
All kicking off in Russia. Presumably will be blamed on Ukraine (which seems unlikely), followed by bloodcurdling nuclear threats.
The US issued a warning about a terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago. How did they know?
They've been pretty good on Russian intel (see the 2022 invasion).
Assuming this isn't a false flag, which seems unlikely given Russia is not looking for an excuse for an anti-terror operation, and was not a lone wolf (reports suggest multiple gunmen), it's hard to think of likely possibilities:
- Russian anti-Putin forces (unlikely, they've not targeted civilians to date) - Chechens (unlikely, they've been very quiet for a long time) - Ukrainians (unlikely - see anti-Putin dissidents, and given Ukraine relies on Western goodwill) - Syrian or Iranian rebels hitting at a country supporting their regime (unlikely, they're more likely to focus on their own leaders) - Russian ultra-nationalists who want a white Slavic Russia (maybe, but why target this rock concert?)
Usually when there's a terrorist attack there's an obvious culprit, even if that isn't always the actual one. Not this time
But Kasparov thinks it's false flag to justify mobilisation.
That's true and yet I chatted to my Irish wife about this earlier and she said something along the lines of, "imagine having so many people who don't like you they you don't know who is responsible for such an attack."
It's something of a feature of an imperial power that they make themselves lots of enemies. Russia have been bombing the shit out of Syria for years, and obviously plenty of other Muslim places before that, so Islamic terrorism wouldn't exactly be a surprise.
Actually despite having all the hallmarks of a Putin mandated false flag I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this was carried out by Ukraine's loose cannon security service. They appear stupid enough to do it.
Really?
I've been quite impressed by how restrained the Ukrainians have been in their attacks on Russian soil.. They've been quite focused on hitting targets that will actually help them in the war - airbases (and their aircraft), factories producing military-related equipment, the oil refineries, railways and other infrastructure.
Texas AG Ken Paxton could see 9-year-old state security fraud charges dropped next week in a proposed deal with prosecutors that would require community service, a six-figure restitution and other punishment, three sources confirm. https://twitter.com/tplohetski/status/1771258054446592388
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
It’s the same as those who find the internet full of ads for porn.
You get offered what you click on.
I get lots of ads for very expensive machine tools.
I get loads of ads for bikes atm. Which is bad timing, as I bought one a couple of weeks ago and don't need another.
But Twitter has recently (ahem) got lots of pornographic ads. In a few cases as replies to posts about steam trains. Now I know a Duchess without her skirt on will get any hotblooded Englishman going, but that's a but much...
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Millions more? How do you see that happening if Ukraine agreed to be annexed?
Population 'redistribution', amongst other things. A redistribution where many disappear. As is already occurring in the occupied areas. Putin will want revenge, as Stalin and others have throughout history. You also assume that the government capitulating means the population will: look at the Free French or Polish for why that's wrong.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
By listening to the news and finding the facts, not revelling in violent imagery.
So, as I said, you learn about it by listening to the views of OTHER people who have watched it. Someone has to watch it - so they can tell you about it. How else do the facts emerge? And how do you know these people aren’t lying to you, given that you won’t watch it?
You’re too effete to actually watch it. I’m not; thus I am able to have an opinion of my own
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
But it sounds like she had an operation to remove a lump. They thought it was benign but are not sure any more so are giving her chemo to catch any secondary metastases
Best wishes to Kate - hoping she makes a full recovery. Cancer really is a horrible, horrible illness.
At the moment I'm slightly in awe of her. Not too many years ago I had a similar diagnosis. An unrelated blood test just before a work trip to the Seychelles and my world was turned upside down. I can remember the sensations at that time like it was yesterday. I can best describe it as a roller coaster that goes down and never bottoms out.
I decided to tell no one because I couldn't see how it would help. it's the loneliest place in the world and there's no clear way of dealing with it.
What it must be like to have to face it with the glare of publicity I can hardly imagine. You feel like everyone's looking at you anyway.... She might well recover but I doubt anything will feel quite the same again.
Eloquent!
Yes; you don't.
I had an interesting change to underlying attitude to life, and worldview.
But I had considered my attitude to death quite significantly when I was younger, which for me made a difference.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
By listening to the news and finding the facts, not revelling in violent imagery.
I think you'll find that blind people in particular have no opinions. On anything. Poor souls.
Well I wouldn’t ask a blind person to give eye witness testimony in court. Would you?
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Millions more? How do you see that happening if Ukraine agreed to be annexed?
Population 'redistribution', amongst other things. A redistribution where many disappear. As is already occurring in the occupied areas. Putin will want revenge, as Stalin and others have throughout history. You also assume that the government capitulating means the population will: look at the Free French or Polish for why that's wrong.
Sorry to hear about Kate. It must be awful to have cancer in any circumstance, but to have it young, looking after children, and in the public spotlight, must add to the stress and worry.
Yet I also find some people's obsession with public figures to be deeply unhealthy for all involved. The pointless discussion about very minor things that weren't anyone's business over the last few weeks has been bizarre to observe on the outside. But well done, the media and public have successfully got their answer and have made the private public.
I hope the media have the dignity to leave the entire family alone in the current circumstances. Yes they are public figures, but we should simply wish them all the best and offer privacy until they deem it a good time to give us an update on Charles or Catherine.
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
But it sounds like she had an operation to remove a lump. They thought it was benign but are not sure any more so are giving her chemo to catch any secondary metastases
It would have been very helpful if they'd been open from the start as to:
i. what the major surgery was, and ii. what the type of cancer is.
Neither of these need be particularly personal pieces of information - not least because with the royals, the personal is public - but also because sharing potentially difficult health information can help others. Obviously there is the family aspect to consider but to be honest, once something is confirmed, openness is probably the best option there too.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
By listening to the news and finding the facts, not revelling in violent imagery.
I think you'll find that blind people in particular have no opinions. On anything. Poor souls.
Well I wouldn’t ask a blind person to give eye witness testimony in court. Would you?
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
What's your opinion of Oborne? He's obviously been on a bit of a journey but still seems to me to be a pretty rigorous journalist. The beheaded, burnt alive babies (apols for alliteration) much touted at the time seems to be largely bullshit.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
It’s the same as those who find the internet full of ads for porn.
You get offered what you click on.
I get lots of ads for very expensive machine tools.
I get loads of ads for bikes atm. Which is bad timing, as I bought one a couple of weeks ago and don't need another.
But Twitter has recently (ahem) got lots of pornographic ads. In a few cases as replies to posts about steam trains. Now I know a Duchess without her skirt on will get any hotblooded Englishman going, but that's a but much...
Indeed. I think the streamlined Duchesses look better than the A4's.
Odd fact: the LNER went to Bugatti to get advice on streamlining the A4s. The LMS just thought it through and got something just as effective in terms of efficiency. Apparently, what the LNER design did do better was lift smoke out of view of the cab - although that had not been a major design aim. In reality, speed was not the main am for either design - the streamlining was to save fuel at speed. That, and the fact that streamlining was the in thing in the 1930s.
Shame the Duchesses were a Crewe, not a Derby, design though...
All I'll say is there are plenty of people in Surrey who don't earn £100k a year.
Sorry - it was more a moan about the BBC redirecting me from the (local to me) .co.uk because they think I am 'abroad'. I assume they show adverts to non-UK people or something.
In any case - the updated layout is terrible. Sorry abroad-people.
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
But it sounds like she had an operation to remove a lump. They thought it was benign but are not sure any more so are giving her chemo to catch any secondary metastases
Foxy is probably still too busy laughing about his meme the other night to be able to give an opinion. He’s a Christian though so might have a caring post to share his views.
Sorry to hear about Kate. It must be awful to have cancer in any circumstance, but to have it young, looking after children, and in the public spotlight, must add to the stress and worry.
Yet I also find some people's obsession with public figures to be deeply unhealthy for all involved. The pointless discussion about very minor things that weren't anyone's business over the last few weeks has been bizarre to observe on the outside. But well done, the media and public have successfully got their answer and have made the private public.
I hope the media have the dignity to leave the entire family alone in the current circumstances. Yes they are public figures, but we should simply wish them all the best and offer privacy until they deem it a good time to give us an update on Charles or Catherine.
But that’s not how monarchy works, unfortunately. They have to be seen, they are the embodiment of the nation, they open hospitals and bestow awards and wave on balconies to crowds and do things abroad watched by contented natives, and on it goes
You can’t have a private sequestered monarchy. It doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t work. One of the most perilous times for the UK crown was when Queen Victoria hid herself away for decades in widow’s weeds - republicanism flourished
So you either have a republic or you have a monarchy with lots of pomp and spectacle
No one is forcing them to do the job. They could abdicate
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
By listening to the news and finding the facts, not revelling in violent imagery.
So, as I said, you learn about it by listening to the views of OTHER people who have watched it. Someone has to watch it - so they can tell you about it. How else do the facts emerge? And how do you know these people aren’t lying to you, given that you won’t watch it?
You’re too effete to actually watch it. I’m not; thus I am able to have an opinion of my own
Due to the lack of video coverage, people in the UK had literally no Idea that the Napoleonic wars were happening.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's pretty easy if you not a ghoul.
It’s quite amazing how many PBers refuse to watch news that is upsetting and are instead content to have it gently described to them as they suck their thumbs in the corner of the nursery
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
By listening to the news and finding the facts, not revelling in violent imagery.
So, as I said, you learn about it by listening to the views of OTHER people who have watched it. Someone has to watch it - so they can tell you about it. How else do the facts emerge? And how do you know these people aren’t lying to you, given that you won’t watch it?
You’re too effete to actually watch it. I’m not; thus I am able to have an opinion of my own
I'm able to make sensible judgments about what are sensible sources, while you believe any bullshit you see on the internet.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's pretty easy if you not a ghoul.
It’s quite amazing how many PBers refuse to watch news that is upsetting and are instead content to have it gently described to them as they suck their thumbs in the corner of the nursery
There's a difference between watching the news and gore hunting on social media.
I had not commented on the recent posts by Mike Smithson, but feel that I should This site, which he founded twenty years ago has played a significant part in all our lives, and the way that people of divergent political opinions can interact has been to the good of British democracy at a difficult time.
I wonder whether Robert and TSE, in discussion with Mike, might think about setting up a fund perhaps for us to contribute in his name to a dementia charity, or another charity that might be dear to his heart. In the alternative, some other endeavour in his name, perhaps a lecture on a political subject at a university or at some other public body.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
I watch news; I try to avoid the gory. bloody stuff that is apparently the only way you get tumescent without little blue pills or paying girls.
It's actually quite easy to avoid the gory stuff. And if you think it's going to be gory, skip over it.
You revel in it.
No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did
I shall henceforth treat all your opinions with this as vital context. That you haven’t got an actual fucking clue what you’re talking about because you never watch news that might be scary
My family used to have a cairn terrier like this. On fireworks night we would put him in the wardrobe surrounded by scatter cushions
"No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did "
My opinion on October 7th is that Hamas performed heinous acts on innocent civilians, for evil reasons.
I cannot understand how you think seeing those acts would make my views on Hamas any stronger. Unless you're saying they didn't occur?
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's pretty easy if you not a ghoul.
It’s quite amazing how many PBers refuse to watch news that is upsetting and are instead content to have it gently described to them as they suck their thumbs in the corner of the nursery
I've seen quite a few disturbing videos due to following people for news about the Ukraine War, but a few times what had been shared has had to be retracted as not genuine. Faked in some way, not at the time or place claimed, etc.
Even watching harrowing footage is not a guarantee of access to the raw facts. You still have to trust your source and the provenance of the footage.
Why on Earth does somebody earning nearly £100K need childcare support? Is the UK really that broken that childcare is now that expensive that people in the top 10% of earners can't afford it?
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
What's your opinion of Oborne? He's obviously been on a bit of a journey but still seems to me to be a pretty rigorous journalist. The beheaded, burnt alive babies (apols for alliteration) much touted at the time seems to be largely bullshit.
I haven’t see that video but I do believe some Israelis exaggerated aspects of October 7 (eg the babies). Whether it was deliberate or just hysterical fear in the moment I do not know
It’s a shame it happened as it is pointless and counterproductive. The Hamas attack was absolutely horrific enough in itself. As the videos show
To know this: You’ll have to watch the videos. I accept this is too much for more mentally vulnerable pb-ers, like @JosiasJessop and @Anabobazina so they’ll just have to rely on what I tell them about it, which is kinda poignant
John Redwood calls again for the Bank to change it's bond sale (and interest rate) policy, and by extension for Sunak and Hunt to drive this change of policy, since the Bank is an arm of the state:
The Bank of England forecast inflation at 2% when it was going on to hit 11%. So clearly it does not understand inflation and has little ability to forecast it accurately as it is required to do. It tells us the inflation was caused by the Ukraine war and energy prices which it could not predict. So how come inflation was already 3 times target before the invasion? That main part of the inflation was not caused by the war. How come Japan and China kept inflation down to around 2% despite having to import much dearer energy as a result of the war?
Now we are told they cannot risk lower rates because there could be more trouble in the Red Sea. Freight rates and insurance rates are already well up and much shipping has been diverted to the long route, so markets know all about that pressure on prices. Meanwhile the money supply has been squeezed, credit is dear and scarcer, mortgage demand has fallen and the Bank ignores all these obvious signs that inflation will come down.
Worst of all is the gross distortion of its balance sheet. They bought far too many bonds at crazy prices in 2021 only now to want to sell them at huge losses and send the taxpayer the bill. Why? The ECB that made the same inflationary mistake is not doubling the error by selling bonds in the market. The Fed is not getting reimbursement from its Treasury. Only the Bank insists on double austerity with squeezed money and less public spending or tax cuts as the taxpayer picks up the bill of the UK’s uniquely bad bond investor, the Bank of England. Never has the Bank lost so much money so quickly for no good purpose.
We need an urgent change of Bank policy, Stop selling the bonds. Cut the base rate by 25 bp. Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, Brazil, China have started cutting their rates.
On the bond sales, I think this is becoming a totemic indicator of seriousness about good governance. Is a prospective PM willing to challenge the Bank on this, or are they happy to imperil the nation's finances whilst moaning on about 'responsibility' and there being 'no headroom in the public finances' - effectively flagrant lies when they know full well that wheelbarrows full of public money are being emptied into the Bank of England furnace. Starmer and his pathetic crew have shown their colours - it remains to be seen whether any Conservative leadership challengers are willing to grasp the nettle.
The loss is purely accounting.
What you are missing is that the Bank *created* money to buy the bonds.
They didn’t take tax money. They went to their spreadsheet and turned the volume up to pay 11.
Now they are selling the bonds and cancelling the money they receive in return.
However they are selling the bonds for less than the bought it - it’s like finding the volume is stuck at 4 rather than going down to 0.
Technically it means that their attempt to sterilise will have only been partially successful - the long term risk is an inflated money supply which will feed into higher asset prices
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
What's your opinion of Oborne? He's obviously been on a bit of a journey but still seems to me to be a pretty rigorous journalist. The beheaded, burnt alive babies (apols for alliteration) much touted at the time seems to be largely bullshit.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
I watch news; I try to avoid the gory. bloody stuff that is apparently the only way you get tumescent without little blue pills or paying girls.
It's actually quite easy to avoid the gory stuff. And if you think it's going to be gory, skip over it.
You revel in it.
No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did
I shall henceforth treat all your opinions with this as vital context. That you haven’t got an actual fucking clue what you’re talking about because you never watch news that might be scary
My family used to have a cairn terrier like this. On fireworks night we would put him in the wardrobe surrounded by scatter cushions
"No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did "
My opinion on October 7th is that Hamas performed heinous acts on innocent civilians, for evil reasons.
I cannot understand how you think seeing those acts would make my views on Hamas any stronger. Unless you're saying they didn't occur?
If there was spectacular video of the 2011 Norway attacks, you can imagine Leon would be spaffing off over them. which would apparently be quite ironic...
This evening I surprised myself by making a long comment on Ashfield Politics in a local community Facebook Group.
I'd be interested in reactions.
It is quite long. Tom Hollis is the Ashfield Independent Deputy Council Leader. --------------------------- Part 1
Hollis is an erratic individual with a record of criminality going back in published reports to ~2015 (rather pantomime assault conviction), who is not fit to be a local Councillor and needs to be voted out or have the self-respect to resign, which does not appear to exist.
His previous episode of dishonestly pantomiming faked-up pretend victimhood to fabricated violent threats from a neighbour over a 999 call to the police was shall I cautiously say 'beyond unacceptable', as was hooning down Outram-Street at 60-65mph in his Landrover Plankatank followed by a police vehicle , which he then reportedly reversed into in the Asda forecourt.
Plus the questions around planning matters, and the significant fine recently received for non-declaration of an interest, with the imo rather credulous comments by the District Judge. I am still unsure about whether there are other matters that may still come to light.
The guy imo does not have a place in public life. His vote collapsed but not quite enough. Fortunately Hollis is not my Councillor; I have sympathy for those for whom he represents, and his colleagues.
Personally, I won't be voting for JZ at the Parliamentary Election either, whilst he has a whole laundry list of charges at Crown Court level hanging over him, which trial he has successively had moved out of the area. That's not on for a candidate in an election.
I had sympathy for JZ in 2015 when warmed over rumours mysteriously 'emerged', just before the 2015 election, when he was kept on tenterhooks for several years and the case was then collapsed at the door of the Court, and have said so to friends and colleagues including my local AI Councillors on the doorstep.
If JZ was serious about clearing his name rather than slightly desperately spinning it out and hoping for the best Trump-style, he would have pushed for an early trial and verdict before any prospect of a General Election. He does not deserve a vote.
Hollis and JZ have both gone way beyond what what is tolerable, as is our pantomine Leeantherthal Man. LA was a good Councillor as I understand from my own observations, and others' experience, who has gone of the rails and lost his way. He does not deserve a vote either.
I think that is a reasonably fair and complete account, which I can adequately defend by reference to published news reports, and the relevant Police and Court records.
I think it fair to describe Ashfield Politics politics over the last 10-20 years at all levels as a "shark-infested custard". A former respected MP for an adjacent constituency who is an acquaintance has repeatedly used the word "asinine" of the politics here. We need better.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's pretty easy if you not a ghoul.
It’s quite amazing how many PBers refuse to watch news that is upsetting and are instead content to have it gently described to them as they suck their thumbs in the corner of the nursery
I've seen quite a few disturbing videos due to following people for news about the Ukraine War, but a few times what had been shared has had to be retracted as not genuine. Faked in some way, not at the time or place claimed, etc.
Even watching harrowing footage is not a guarantee of access to the raw facts. You still have to trust your source and the provenance of the footage.
It’s a bloody stupid argument, and neither side is right in insisting that they’re right to the exclusion of the other.
NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for @centreforlondon 📈24pt Sadiq Khan lead 🌹Lab 51 (+11) 🌳Con 27 (-8) 🔶LD 10 (+6) 🌍Green 8 (=) ➡️Reform 2 (NEW) ⬜️Other 3 (-10) 1,510 Londoners, 8-12 March (chg vs 2021 result (1st prefs))
Oh well, that hype for the Tory candidate lasted a whole 5 minutes.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
I watch news; I try to avoid the gory. bloody stuff that is apparently the only way you get tumescent without little blue pills or paying girls.
It's actually quite easy to avoid the gory stuff. And if you think it's going to be gory, skip over it.
You revel in it.
No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did
I shall henceforth treat all your opinions with this as vital context. That you haven’t got an actual fucking clue what you’re talking about because you never watch news that might be scary
My family used to have a cairn terrier like this. On fireworks night we would put him in the wardrobe surrounded by scatter cushions
"No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did "
My opinion on October 7th is that Hamas performed heinous acts on innocent civilians, for evil reasons.
I cannot understand how you think seeing those acts would make my views on Hamas any stronger. Unless you're saying they didn't occur?
Well you won’t know unless you watch it. Until you watch it you’re relying on people with stronger constitutions to watch these things for you - so as to give you the facts as they see them. In other words, you’re relying on people like me. Or sometimes, actually, me. In Ukraine etc
This evening I surprised myself by making a long comment on Ashfield Politics in a local community Facebook Group.
I'd be interested in reactions.
It is quite long. Tom Hollis is the Ashfield Independent Deputy Council Leader. --------------------------- Part 1
Hollis is an erratic individual with a record of criminality going back in published reports to ~2015 (rather pantomime assault conviction), who is not fit to be a local Councillor and needs to be voted out or have the self-respect to resign, which does not appear to exist.
His previous episode of dishonestly pantomiming faked-up pretend victimhood to fabricated violent threats from a neighbour over a 999 call to the police was shall I cautiously say 'beyond unacceptable', as was hooning down Outram-Street at 60-65mph in his Landrover Plankatank followed by a police vehicle , which he then reportedly reversed into in the Asda forecourt.
Plus the questions around planning matters, and the significant fine recently received for non-declaration of an interest, with the imo rather credulous comments by the District Judge. I am still unsure about whether there are other matters that may still come to light.
The guy imo does not have a place in public life. His vote collapsed but not quite enough. Fortunately Hollis is not my Councillor; I have sympathy for those for whom he represents, and his colleagues.
Personally, I won't be voting for JZ at the Parliamentary Election either, whilst he has a whole laundry list of charges at Crown Court level hanging over him, which trial he has successively had moved out of the area. That's not on for a candidate in an election.
I had sympathy for JZ in 2015 when warmed over rumours mysteriously 'emerged', just before the 2015 election, when he was kept on tenterhooks for several years and the case was then collapsed at the door of the Court, and have said so to friends and colleagues including my local AI Councillors on the doorstep.
If JZ was serious about clearing his name rather than slightly desperately spinning it out and hoping for the best Trump-style, he would have pushed for an early trial and verdict before any prospect of a General Election. He does not deserve a vote.
Hollis and JZ have both gone way beyond what what is tolerable, as is our pantomine Leeantherthal Man. LA was a good Councillor as I understand from my own observations, and others' experience, who has gone of the rails and lost his way. He does not deserve a vote either.
I think that is a reasonably fair and complete account, which I can adequately defend by reference to published news reports, and the relevant Police and Court records.
I think it fair to describe Ashfield Politics politics over the last 10-20 years at all levels as a "shark-infested custard". A former respected MP for an adjacent constituency who is an acquaintance has repeatedly used the word "asinine" of the politics here. We need better.
Part 2
Deciding how to vote in the forthcoming General Election is a challenge.
Drawing a cock-and-balls in nearly all the boxes on the ballot paper is one option.
My take on Lee Anderson is that the demonisation of him from London-Lefty circles, and certain local Labour elements reacting to his 'turncoat' behaviour were quite a way off, and self-collapsing.
Imo the ritualised abuse of LA as a "scab" is embarrassing for those doing it, who are performing to themselves; aiui he was actually on the Scargill side of the miners' dispute as a perhaps too ingenuous and easily moulded young man.
Personally I find Keir Morrison in particular a bit of a caricature of the Labour Left. His photobombing of Ed Milliband in a "A Generation of Trade Unionists will dance on Thatchet's Grave" teeshirt which made the front page, which I believe is an accurate report, was imo crass.
Anderson is a genuine local, and has genuine experience of personal and family poverty, and a significant amount of time as a single-dad and CAB worker. That deserves a measure of respect even now.
The rhetoric being used against him does not land on target.
I was happy to support LA when levelling-up was still credible, which is no longer true since the current Govt have quite cynically killed HS2 (which I still strongly support) and have spent at least 2 years reaching for Hail Mary passes rather than trying to be a serious Government aiming to make use of potential UK opportunities-post-Brexit. They have also slashed any commitment to high quality local government or the public realm.
IMO Anderson has gone far too populist, and is pandering to a more extreme constituency than he previously embraced. Going Ref-UK will split his vote and sink him, imo. I think Right-Far RIght is not strong enough in Ashfield to let LA win again, once he has lost the Conservative loyalist vote. It's not a shoo-in for the Labour candidate at the General Election, but - depending on how loyal AI voters are to JZ, and how well Rhea Keehn comes across, and how sensible her party are, IMO it's there for them to win.
I think Labour may take it from more or less a Gloria type stance plus a firmly locally-interested candidate, That is, not living in the Trent Valley Director Belt Geoff Hoon style, or being a Dennis Skinner died-in-the-wool traditionalist type. Demographic shift, new commuter estates and the Robin Hood line have removed that last possibility in Ashfield in a trend since about 1985. We are no longer "weigh the Labour traditional vote" nor yet "middle-class / diverse community" left, which are the two firmly-Labour constituency patterns in 2024 afaics.
LibDems will be nowhere because the AIs are still camped on their voter-base (and in their shop unit).
That more on various people than I would usually say in such a public forum, but I think the view is again defensible.
Others are welcome to disagree with any of my thinking, of course.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
What's your opinion of Oborne? He's obviously been on a bit of a journey but still seems to me to be a pretty rigorous journalist. The beheaded, burnt alive babies (apols for alliteration) much touted at the time seems to be largely bullshit.
I haven’t see that video but I do believe some Israelis exaggerated aspects of October 7 (eg the babies). Whether it was deliberate or just hysterical fear in the moment I do not know
It’s a shame it happened as it is pointless and counterproductive. The Hamas attack was absolutely horrific enough in itself. As the videos show
To know this: You’ll have to watch the videos. I accept this is too much for more mentally vulnerable pb-ers, like @JosiasJessop and @Anabobazina so they’ll just have to rely on what I tell them about it, which is kinda poignant
No, you don't. And I don't rely on anything you tell me, because you're a bullshitter who always goes for the dramatic over reality. You're an unreliable source on a betting website. Untrustworthy. A fool. A lovable jester.
And the thing is: even if you watch the videos, as you claim, I bet you don't apply your self-acclaimed 'high IQ' into considering whether what you're watching is true, or the whole story.
It's a trap we can all fall into, but you don't even seem to have apply the 'is this true' filter.
Why on Earth does somebody earning nearly £100K need childcare support? Is the UK really that broken that childcare is now that expensive that people in the top 10% of earners can't afford it?
They might not need it, but it might still be good public policy to provide it. 1. It simplifies providing support if you don't have to check everyone's income. 2. It avoids creating a disincentive to increasing earnings, if a small increase in pay might take someone from just below a threshold to just above, and then end up worse off. 3. It supports a general policy objective of increasing the birth rate towards the replacement level, so that the demographic transition is less severe.
I had not commented on the recent posts by Mike Smithson, but feel that I should This site, which he founded twenty years ago has played a significant part in all our lives, and the way that people of divergent political opinions can interact has been to the good of British democracy at a difficult time.
I wonder whether Robert and TSE, in discussion with Mike, might think about setting up a fund perhaps for us to contribute in his name to a dementia charity, or another charity that might be dear to his heart. In the alternative, some other endeavour in his name, perhaps a lecture on a political subject at a university or at some other public body.
I don't know what others might think
I’d contribute to that
Agreed. I've only just seen the thread from yesterday when Mike announced he was going, very sad. Would be good to set up something to mark the occasion and thank him for having the idea of setting up this site in the first place.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
I watch news; I try to avoid the gory. bloody stuff that is apparently the only way you get tumescent without little blue pills or paying girls.
It's actually quite easy to avoid the gory stuff. And if you think it's going to be gory, skip over it.
You revel in it.
No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did
I shall henceforth treat all your opinions with this as vital context. That you haven’t got an actual fucking clue what you’re talking about because you never watch news that might be scary
My family used to have a cairn terrier like this. On fireworks night we would put him in the wardrobe surrounded by scatter cushions
"No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did "
My opinion on October 7th is that Hamas performed heinous acts on innocent civilians, for evil reasons.
I cannot understand how you think seeing those acts would make my views on Hamas any stronger. Unless you're saying they didn't occur?
Well you won’t know unless you watch it. Until you watch it you’re relying on people with stronger constitutions to watch these things for you - so as to give you the facts as they see them. In other words, you’re relying on people like me. Or sometimes, actually, me. In Ukraine etc
and if a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there with a smart phone to film it, we will never know how it fell.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
I watch news; I try to avoid the gory. bloody stuff that is apparently the only way you get tumescent without little blue pills or paying girls.
It's actually quite easy to avoid the gory stuff. And if you think it's going to be gory, skip over it.
You revel in it.
No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did
I shall henceforth treat all your opinions with this as vital context. That you haven’t got an actual fucking clue what you’re talking about because you never watch news that might be scary
My family used to have a cairn terrier like this. On fireworks night we would put him in the wardrobe surrounded by scatter cushions
"No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did "
My opinion on October 7th is that Hamas performed heinous acts on innocent civilians, for evil reasons.
I cannot understand how you think seeing those acts would make my views on Hamas any stronger. Unless you're saying they didn't occur?
Well you won’t know unless you watch it. Until you watch it you’re relying on people with stronger constitutions to watch these things for you - so as to give you the facts as they see them. In other words, you’re relying on people like me. Or sometimes, actually, me. In Ukraine etc
The thing is, I don't trust you. You are an unreliable narrator. A storyteller. A bullshitter. It's impossible to tell where reality begins with you, and fiction begins. And when you travel, I expect it reinforces your preconceptions, rather than opens your eyes.
Why on Earth does somebody earning nearly £100K need childcare support? Is the UK really that broken that childcare is now that expensive that people in the top 10% of earners can't afford it?
They might not need it, but it might still be good public policy to provide it. 1. It simplifies providing support if you don't have to check everyone's income. 2. It avoids creating a disincentive to increasing earnings, if a small increase in pay might take someone from just below a threshold to just above, and then end up worse off. 3. It supports a general policy objective of increasing the birth rate towards the replacement level, so that the demographic transition is less severe.
For the record I would like to see UBI replace all means testing anyway, however on 2, childcare support is only for 3 and 4 year olds isn't it?
So who's disincentivised for taking a pay rise that costs them a benefit that they won't be eligible to in 12 months time anyway?
Why on Earth does somebody earning nearly £100K need childcare support? Is the UK really that broken that childcare is now that expensive that people in the top 10% of earners can't afford it?
They might not need it, but it might still be good public policy to provide it. 1. It simplifies providing support if you don't have to check everyone's income. 2. It avoids creating a disincentive to increasing earnings, if a small increase in pay might take someone from just below a threshold to just above, and then end up worse off. 3. It supports a general policy objective of increasing the birth rate towards the replacement level, so that the demographic transition is less severe.
Wasn't that just retail politics for relatively well-off people, in the hope of keeping some votes in the Blue Wall, in resistance to the .. er .. Yellow Peril ?
It was noticeable that they left the 2 child limit in place; I have seen some commentary, which I have not checked for accuracy, that removing it would have lifted 250k children out of poverty,
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
But it sounds like she had an operation to remove a lump. They thought it was benign but are not sure any more so are giving her chemo to catch any secondary metastases
It would have been very helpful if they'd been open from the start as to:
i. what the major surgery was, and ii. what the type of cancer is.
Neither of these need be particularly personal pieces of information - not least because with the royals, the personal is public - but also because sharing potentially difficult health information can help others. Obviously there is the family aspect to consider but to be honest, once something is confirmed, openness is probably the best option there too.
Senior Russian figures now starting to blame Ukraine and promising revenge.
One has to hope that this one is so blatant that intelligent Russians see right through it and we get another brain drain. As others have commented, this may not be a false flag but Putin will still use it as such. There needs to be a phrase for that. Flag of convenience perhaps.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's pretty easy if you not a ghoul.
It’s quite amazing how many PBers refuse to watch news that is upsetting and are instead content to have it gently described to them as they suck their thumbs in the corner of the nursery
I've seen quite a few disturbing videos due to following people for news about the Ukraine War, but a few times what had been shared has had to be retracted as not genuine. Faked in some way, not at the time or place claimed, etc.
Even watching harrowing footage is not a guarantee of access to the raw facts. You still have to trust your source and the provenance of the footage.
It’s a bloody stupid argument, and neither side is right in insisting that they’re right to the exclusion of the other.
But a video of an alleged shooting, where the poster says it is of A shooting B, can be very misleading. Is it of a real shooting, or of the even t described? Is A the perpetrator, and the victim B, or actually vice versa? This is something we see in the current Ukraine war, where the same picture has been shown by both sides, and I, as a non-expert, have little idea if it is a Ukrainian T72 tank or a Russian one. In fact, the people who posted it probably do not, either.
It is why you need other trusted sources - and even they can get it wrong. If they get it wrong frequently, they should not be trusted...
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
What's your opinion of Oborne? He's obviously been on a bit of a journey but still seems to me to be a pretty rigorous journalist. The beheaded, burnt alive babies (apols for alliteration) much touted at the time seems to be largely bullshit.
I haven’t see that video but I do believe some Israelis exaggerated aspects of October 7 (eg the babies). Whether it was deliberate or just hysterical fear in the moment I do not know
It’s a shame it happened as it is pointless and counterproductive. The Hamas attack was absolutely horrific enough in itself. As the videos show
To know this: You’ll have to watch the videos. I accept this is too much for more mentally vulnerable pb-ers, like @JosiasJessop and @Anabobazina so they’ll just have to rely on what I tell them about it, which is kinda poignant
No, you don't. And I don't rely on anything you tell me, because you're a bullshitter who always goes for the dramatic over reality. You're an unreliable source on a betting website. Untrustworthy. A fool. A lovable jester.
And the thing is: even if you watch the videos, as you claim, I bet you don't apply your self-acclaimed 'high IQ' into considering whether what you're watching is true, or the whole story.
It's a trap we can all fall into, but you don't even seem to have apply the 'is this true' filter.
So your argument has now gone from I’m some kind of sick puppy for watching disturbing news to I’m probably lying about watching the videos, and it’s just “some claim” - so I’m pretending to be a sick pervert but actually I’m normal? What is it? Whuh?
And then you say that even if I do watch these videos I probably don’t apply my high intelligence because because because and then anyway I don’t get the full story and I don’t know if it’s true but anyway anyway this is something we all do but anyway also I “DON’T EVEN SEEM TO HAVE APPLY THE IS THIS”
Frankly, I’m devastated. And this is only the day after the camaraderie of our 20th PB birthday festivities
And you just toss out cruel and heartless critiques like “I DON’T EVEN SEEM TO HAVE APPLY THE IS THIS”
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
What's your opinion of Oborne? He's obviously been on a bit of a journey but still seems to me to be a pretty rigorous journalist. The beheaded, burnt alive babies (apols for alliteration) much touted at the time seems to be largely bullshit.
I haven’t see that video but I do believe some Israelis exaggerated aspects of October 7 (eg the babies). Whether it was deliberate or just hysterical fear in the moment I do not know
It’s a shame it happened as it is pointless and counterproductive. The Hamas attack was absolutely horrific enough in itself. As the videos show
To know this: You’ll have to watch the videos. I accept this is too much for more mentally vulnerable pb-ers, like @JosiasJessop and @Anabobazina so they’ll just have to rely on what I tell them about it, which is kinda poignant
No, you don't. And I don't rely on anything you tell me, because you're a bullshitter who always goes for the dramatic over reality. You're an unreliable source on a betting website. Untrustworthy. A fool. A lovable jester.
And the thing is: even if you watch the videos, as you claim, I bet you don't apply your self-acclaimed 'high IQ' into considering whether what you're watching is true, or the whole story.
It's a trap we can all fall into, but you don't even seem to have apply the 'is this true' filter.
So your argument has now gone from I’m some kind of sick puppy for watching disturbing news to I’m probably lying about watching the videos, and it’s just “some claim” - so I’m pretending to be a sick pervert but actually I’m normal? What is it? Whuh?
And then you say that even if I do watch these videos I probably don’t apply my high intelligence because because because and then anyway I don’t get the full story and I don’t know if it’s true but anyway anyway this is something we all do but anyway also I “DON’T EVEN SEEM TO HAVE APPLY THE IS THIS”
Frankly, I’m devastated. And this is only the day after the camaraderie of our 20th PB birthday festivities
And you just toss out cruel and heartless critiques like “I DON’T EVEN SEEM TO HAVE APPLY THE IS THIS”
I need to swim. I might not comment again
I think you need to step away from the keyboard for a while...
Sorry to hear about Kate. It must be awful to have cancer in any circumstance, but to have it young, looking after children, and in the public spotlight, must add to the stress and worry.
Yet I also find some people's obsession with public figures to be deeply unhealthy for all involved. The pointless discussion about very minor things that weren't anyone's business over the last few weeks has been bizarre to observe on the outside. But well done, the media and public have successfully got their answer and have made the private public.
I hope the media have the dignity to leave the entire family alone in the current circumstances. Yes they are public figures, but we should simply wish them all the best and offer privacy until they deem it a good time to give us an update on Charles or Catherine.
I happened to be listening to Virgin radio at 6 when her statement was read out. I thought she did quite well. Then tye newsreader summarised it, concluding, without apparent irony, "the princess of Wales has asked for privacy. Further analysis of this later."
Why on Earth does somebody earning nearly £100K need childcare support? Is the UK really that broken that childcare is now that expensive that people in the top 10% of earners can't afford it?
They might not need it, but it might still be good public policy to provide it. 1. It simplifies providing support if you don't have to check everyone's income. 2. It avoids creating a disincentive to increasing earnings, if a small increase in pay might take someone from just below a threshold to just above, and then end up worse off. 3. It supports a general policy objective of increasing the birth rate towards the replacement level, so that the demographic transition is less severe.
To counter on some of those:
1. True, but most are under PAYE where eligible for support. There are various other things which are means tested including nursery places etc. I think most people assume they're eligible until they're not.
2. Agreed, but not sure child benefit is material enough to impact decisions over £100k.
3. We need to do more on this, I agree. The threshold could be higher, for example. For those on £200k it's simply not going to be a contributing factor to whether they have children.
I would almost go a step further and cancel / scale back child support and replace it with significantly increased early years care and support. The period prior to school is the most acute financially.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's very easy to avoid, unless you're a sick ghoul who hunts it out. I see them occasionally, and rapidly try to skip over them.
You seem to revel in them, and telling people about them.
Yes whatever YAWN. It’s news. I am interested in news. I watch it
You revel in images of pain and hurt; that much is obvious from your words on here, and some of your books.
Many decades ago, the Sunday Times had a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber in its magazine. It was a head, lying on the pavement, undamaged with eyes closed. But no body. I wish to God I had never seen it as I can still visualise it, and try to avoid such images where I can.
In Putin's current adventure, I was in the kill-all-Russian-invaders mode. Until I saw a picture of a lad, who could not have been over twenty, sitting in the cab of a loggies lorry. It brought home to me that they are people too, being sent by an evil regime to do evil acts. I want them to get out of Ukraine; but if that can be done without any ore deaths, so be it. Unfortunately Ukraine surrendering to Russia will lead to millions more deaths.
Oh do shut up. How do you have an opinion on, say, Gaza, if you firmly refuse to watch any news about it?
How can you have an opinion on October 7 if you’ve not actually seen any images of it?
I watch news; I try to avoid the gory. bloody stuff that is apparently the only way you get tumescent without little blue pills or paying girls.
It's actually quite easy to avoid the gory stuff. And if you think it's going to be gory, skip over it.
You revel in it.
No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did
I shall henceforth treat all your opinions with this as vital context. That you haven’t got an actual fucking clue what you’re talking about because you never watch news that might be scary
My family used to have a cairn terrier like this. On fireworks night we would put him in the wardrobe surrounded by scatter cushions
"No, you can’t have an opinion on October 7 unless you’ve seen what Hamas did "
My opinion on October 7th is that Hamas performed heinous acts on innocent civilians, for evil reasons.
I cannot understand how you think seeing those acts would make my views on Hamas any stronger. Unless you're saying they didn't occur?
Well you won’t know unless you watch it. Until you watch it you’re relying on people with stronger constitutions to watch these things for you - so as to give you the facts as they see them. In other words, you’re relying on people like me. Or sometimes, actually, me. In Ukraine etc
There is one thing seeing it on the news media, but seeking out or seeing it on social media with the graphic horror is not a requirement to accept and be horrified by the event/s
My eldest son attended ground zero at the Christchurch earthquake and the horror and sights he saw precipitated serous PTSD several years later with him having electro convulsive treatment in a Vancouver clinic.
On a phone call in his worst moments he described the sights and sounds in graphic and tearful detail that really upset me, and brought home just how many of us wanting to help in a tragedy cannot wipe away that which they witness
Thankfully he is finally in a good place and is coming over in May with his wife to our Diamond Wedding anniversary, but I would just say I do not share your views on this and fully support those who do not want to seek out graphic details
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's pretty easy if you not a ghoul.
It’s quite amazing how many PBers refuse to watch news that is upsetting and are instead content to have it gently described to them as they suck their thumbs in the corner of the nursery
I've seen quite a few disturbing videos due to following people for news about the Ukraine War, but a few times what had been shared has had to be retracted as not genuine. Faked in some way, not at the time or place claimed, etc.
Even watching harrowing footage is not a guarantee of access to the raw facts. You still have to trust your source and the provenance of the footage.
It’s a bloody stupid argument, and neither side is right in insisting that they’re right to the exclusion of the other.
But a video of an alleged shooting, where the poster says it is of A shooting B, can be very misleading. Is it of a real shooting, or of the even t described? Is A the perpetrator, and the victim B, or actually vice versa? This is something we see in the current Ukraine war, where the same picture has been shown by both sides, and I, as a non-expert, have little idea if it is a Ukrainian T72 tank or a Russian one. In fact, the people who posted it probably do not, either.
It is why you need other trusted sources - and even they can get it wrong. If they get it wrong frequently, they should not be trusted...
Indeed, just as you get videos or images going viral which turn out to be from unrelated events years before.
Lets face it, nobody goes around looking at gory images because they want to get to the truth.
We can have such interesting, and often long, almost entirely text-based discussions on this site, precisely because such imagery is not required.
By and large we all operate with the same field of facts. Where we disagree normally comes down to personal opinions on those facts due to having differing morals, priorities, thoughts, logic, interpretations, concerns, preferences etc
I can have wildly differing views on someone else, on the same issue, while recognising their facts because my priorities are not theirs and vice-versa.
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
But it sounds like she had an operation to remove a lump. They thought it was benign but are not sure any more so are giving her chemo to catch any secondary metastases
It would have been very helpful if they'd been open from the start as to:
i. what the major surgery was, and ii. what the type of cancer is.
Neither of these need be particularly personal pieces of information - not least because with the royals, the personal is public - but also because sharing potentially difficult health information can help others. Obviously there is the family aspect to consider but to be honest, once something is confirmed, openness is probably the best option there too.
Why on Earth does somebody earning nearly £100K need childcare support? Is the UK really that broken that childcare is now that expensive that people in the top 10% of earners can't afford it?
Pretty much. I remember when I had two kids under three: on any given day they went to nursery - and it wasn't a particularly fancy nursery - it cost me more than I earned in that day. I was basically working so I was still employable when they went to school.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's pretty easy if you not a ghoul.
It’s quite amazing how many PBers refuse to watch news that is upsetting and are instead content to have it gently described to them as they suck their thumbs in the corner of the nursery
You don't need to put it like that. By all means watch what you want, I won't judge you for it. There are many people paid to do this stuff and I'm happy an accurate(ish) narrative will emerge in time.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's pretty easy if you not a ghoul.
It’s quite amazing how many PBers refuse to watch news that is upsetting and are instead content to have it gently described to them as they suck their thumbs in the corner of the nursery
I don't watch Gaza because I'm bored shitless by it.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's pretty easy if you not a ghoul.
It’s quite amazing how many PBers refuse to watch news that is upsetting and are instead content to have it gently described to them as they suck their thumbs in the corner of the nursery
Senior Russian figures now starting to blame Ukraine and promising revenge.
One has to hope that this one is so blatant that intelligent Russians see right through it and we get another brain drain. As others have commented, this may not be a false flag but Putin will still use it as such. There needs to be a phrase for that. Flag of convenience perhaps.
The POTS switch off and forcing everyone onto digital voice is going to be an absolute disaster, a scandal waiting to unfold.
Ofcom have manifestly failed in their duty to protect the public. Before Openreach were allowed to do it, they should have mandated bolstering the mobile networks and requiring backup power in the case of a power cut. On the current trajectory people are going to be left cut off.
Senior Russian figures now starting to blame Ukraine and promising revenge.
One has to hope that this one is so blatant that intelligent Russians see right through it and we get another brain drain. As others have commented, this may not be a false flag but Putin will still use it as such. There needs to be a phrase for that. Flag of convenience perhaps.
The villains in Moscow look like calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns
Which supports several different theses. Chechen soldiers angry at Putin? Islamists who want payback for Syria? Hired assassins doing a false flag?
Playing devil's advocate: what expertise do you have to know the difference between 'calm professional soldiers, well versed in using guns', and some yokels who have been playing with AK-47s in the backwoods?
Soldiering is about more than firing guns; terrorism is sadly much simpler. But soldiers can be terrorists (see events passim).
Sadly, I’m basing this opinion on the many hundreds of videos I’ve now watched - as we have all watched - of solders and terrorists and mass shooters in action
There is a certain type that you can spot. They do it methodically and calmly, they don’t shout or rant, they barely break a sweat. They don’t run anywhere: they maybe jog; there is zero emotion
It looks “professional”, it certainly looks like they have shot people before
So my guess would be soldiers more likely than religious militants
But yes, it’s just a guess from an amateur on a balcony in a jungle in Colombia
I haven't, why on God's green earth would I? I don't need that in my brain thanks.
Because it’s impossible to avoid? If you’ve managed to never watch a video or murder or shooting or terrorism in the last 20 years of social media and universal camera phones then bravo, that’s impressive
It's pretty easy if you not a ghoul.
It’s quite amazing how many PBers refuse to watch news that is upsetting and are instead content to have it gently described to them as they suck their thumbs in the corner of the nursery
I've seen quite a few disturbing videos due to following people for news about the Ukraine War, but a few times what had been shared has had to be retracted as not genuine. Faked in some way, not at the time or place claimed, etc.
Even watching harrowing footage is not a guarantee of access to the raw facts. You still have to trust your source and the provenance of the footage.
It’s a bloody stupid argument, and neither side is right in insisting that they’re right to the exclusion of the other.
But a video of an alleged shooting, where the poster says it is of A shooting B, can be very misleading. Is it of a real shooting, or of the even t described? Is A the perpetrator, and the victim B, or actually vice versa? This is something we see in the current Ukraine war, where the same picture has been shown by both sides, and I, as a non-expert, have little idea if it is a Ukrainian T72 tank or a Russian one. In fact, the people who posted it probably do not, either.
It is why you need other trusted sources - and even they can get it wrong. If they get it wrong frequently, they should not be trusted...
Indeed, just as you get videos or images going viral which turn out to be from unrelated events years before.
Lets face it, nobody goes around looking at gory images because they want to get to the truth.
We can have such interesting, and often long, almost entirely text-based discussions on this site, precisely because such imagery is not required.
By and large we all operate with the same field of facts. Where we disagree normally comes down to personal opinions on those facts due to having differing morals, priorities, thoughts, logic, interpretations, concerns, preferences etc
I can have wildly differing views on someone else, on the same issue, while recognising their facts because my priorities are not theirs and vice-versa.
But you only get the facts - as best as they can be pieced together - as to what happened on October 7 because someone else who has a backbone, unlike you, has sat down and watched the video of the atrocities. The Israeli government specifically pieced together a montage of these videos - from cctv, GoPro, etc - so people - journalists etc - could watch what Hamas did and then form their own judgments - and then tell quivering saps like you what they saw and what Hamas did
So the imagery IS required if you are going to have your “text based discussions”. Or you have nothing to talk about. You just get it second hand, that’s the only difference; you rely on someone else’s opinion to form your own opinion, which just makes you more ignorant, rather than some ascetic saint who abhors depravity
The copper switch off and forcing everyone onto digital voice is going to be an absolute disaster, a scandal waiting to unfold.
Ofcom have manifestly failed in their duty to protect the public. Before Openreach were allowed to do it, they should have mandated bolstering the mobile networks and requiring backup power in the case of a power cut. On the current trajectory people are going to be left cut off.
Copper switch off?
Defund the Police have got their ambition have they?
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
But it sounds like she had an operation to remove a lump. They thought it was benign but are not sure any more so are giving her chemo to catch any secondary metastases
It would have been very helpful if they'd been open from the start as to:
i. what the major surgery was, and ii. what the type of cancer is.
Neither of these need be particularly personal pieces of information - not least because with the royals, the personal is public - but also because sharing potentially difficult health information can help others. Obviously there is the family aspect to consider but to be honest, once something is confirmed, openness is probably the best option there too.
As it is, the speculation will continue.
No, I think it's time we left her well alone.
Watching Sky they keep commenting on leaving her well alone, and then interview experts in cancer and Royal commentators on repeat
Typical media saying one thing and doing the other
Hoping the people who were trolling about the Princess of Wales in a hump about her marriage being the reason she was out of the public eye etc are delighted with the news.
But it sounds like she had an operation to remove a lump. They thought it was benign but are not sure any more so are giving her chemo to catch any secondary metastases
It would have been very helpful if they'd been open from the start as to:
i. what the major surgery was, and ii. what the type of cancer is.
Neither of these need be particularly personal pieces of information - not least because with the royals, the personal is public - but also because sharing potentially difficult health information can help others. Obviously there is the family aspect to consider but to be honest, once something is confirmed, openness is probably the best option there too.
As it is, the speculation will continue.
No, I think it's time we left her well alone.
Watching Sky they keep commenting on leaving her well alone, and then interview experts in cancer and Royal commentators on repeat
Typical media saying one thing and doing the other
Comments
*Not sure of the exact biological terms.
And to educate you a little more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre
This is one of those, "we know that you know this is all bullshit, but we don't care" kind of things isn't it?
So she was 41, had been working for 20 years and had 20 years to make an adjustment to her prior plans
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4550388-kinzinger-johnson-deal-ukraine-speakership/
Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) suggested that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) should make a deal on aid to Ukraine to save his Speakership, as the threat of a motion to vacate loomed over Johnson’s head Friday.
“Is she gonna try a motion to vacate? I don’t know,” Kinzinger said on “CNN Newsroom,” in an interview with anchor Jim Acosta, referring to an earlier apparent threat from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to file a motion to oust Johnson.
“In a way, I think it could be interesting if she does, to see if Mike Johnson just says, ‘OK, fine, that’s delayed,’ ’cause you can delay that motion to vacate. ‘And by the way, since you’re doing that, the next bill I’m putting on the floor before we go to recess, is the Senate foreign aid bill,’” Kinzinger continued. “That would be an interesting reaction, and then the Democrats could frankly come in and save Johnson on a motion to vacate.”
Greene later did file a motion to oust Johnson as Speaker, which came in opposition to his support for a bipartisan spending deal making its way through Congress. The Georgia Republican said she would not trigger a vote on ousting Johnson.
“Today, I filed a motion to vacate after Speaker Johnson has betrayed our conference and broken our rules,” Greene told reporters on the steps of the Capitol...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgdly318jeo
(Not sure if it'll in turn redirect you back to the UK one)
I shall henceforth treat all your opinions with this as vital context. That you haven’t got an actual fucking clue what you’re talking about because you never watch news that might be scary
My family used to have a cairn terrier like this. On fireworks night we would put him in the wardrobe surrounded by scatter cushions
Translation: whether it is the Ukrainians or someone else, it is in the interests of the Russian government to blame it on them.
Tolkien has quite an enjoyable passage about the appearance of Ents related to the particular varieties of trees they look after.
I've been quite impressed by how restrained the Ukrainians have been in their attacks on Russian soil.. They've been quite focused on hitting targets that will actually help them in the war - airbases (and their aircraft), factories producing military-related equipment, the oil refineries, railways and other infrastructure.
Texas AG Ken Paxton could see 9-year-old state security fraud charges dropped next week in a proposed deal with prosecutors that would require community service, a six-figure restitution and other punishment, three sources confirm.
https://twitter.com/tplohetski/status/1771258054446592388
You’re too effete to actually watch it. I’m not; thus I am able to have an opinion of my own
But it sounds like she had an operation to remove a lump. They thought it was benign but are not sure any more so are giving her chemo to catch any secondary metastases
https://news.sky.com/story/100-000-a-year-not-a-huge-salary-chancellor-jeremy-hunt-claims-13099962
This is the same story from Sky News.
All I'll say is there are plenty of people in Surrey who don't earn £100k a year.
I had an interesting change to underlying attitude to life, and worldview.
But I had considered my attitude to death quite significantly when I was younger, which for me made a difference.
They are "part of Russia".
Yet I also find some people's obsession with public figures to be deeply unhealthy for all involved. The pointless discussion about very minor things that weren't anyone's business over the last few weeks has been bizarre to observe on the outside. But well done, the media and public have successfully got their answer and have made the private public.
I hope the media have the dignity to leave the entire family alone in the current circumstances. Yes they are public figures, but we should simply wish them all the best and offer privacy until they deem it a good time to give us an update on Charles or Catherine.
i. what the major surgery was, and
ii. what the type of cancer is.
Neither of these need be particularly personal pieces of information - not least because with the royals, the personal is public - but also because sharing potentially difficult health information can help others. Obviously there is the family aspect to consider but to be honest, once something is confirmed, openness is probably the best option there too.
As it is, the speculation will continue.
It just goes to prove that cancer really doesn't discriminate and absolutely anyone can get it.
https://x.com/OborneTweets/status/1771122006114574612?s=20
Odd fact: the LNER went to Bugatti to get advice on streamlining the A4s. The LMS just thought it through and got something just as effective in terms of efficiency. Apparently, what the LNER design did do better was lift smoke out of view of the cab - although that had not been a major design aim. In reality, speed was not the main am for either design - the streamlining was to save fuel at speed. That, and the fact that streamlining was the in thing in the 1930s.
Shame the Duchesses were a Crewe, not a Derby, design though...
In any case - the updated layout is terrible. Sorry abroad-people.
You can’t have a private sequestered monarchy. It doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t work. One of the most perilous times for the UK crown was when
Queen Victoria hid herself away for decades in widow’s weeds - republicanism flourished
So you either have a republic or you have a monarchy with lots of pomp and spectacle
No one is forcing them to do the job. They could abdicate
My opinion on October 7th is that Hamas performed heinous acts on innocent civilians, for evil reasons.
I cannot understand how you think seeing those acts would make my views on Hamas any stronger. Unless you're saying they didn't occur?
Even watching harrowing footage is not a guarantee of access to the raw facts. You still have to trust your source and the provenance of the footage.
It’s a shame it happened as it is pointless and counterproductive. The Hamas attack was absolutely horrific enough in itself. As the videos show
To know this: You’ll have to watch the videos. I accept this is too much for more mentally vulnerable pb-ers, like @JosiasJessop and @Anabobazina so they’ll just have to rely on what I tell them about it, which is kinda poignant
In fact he has to be one of the most ignorant posters here. Wrong all the time and in denial about it.
What you are missing is that the Bank *created* money to buy the bonds.
They didn’t take tax money. They went to their spreadsheet and turned the volume up to pay 11.
Now they are selling the bonds and cancelling the money they receive in return.
However they are selling the bonds for less than the bought it - it’s like finding the volume is stuck at 4 rather than going down to 0.
Technically it means that their attempt to sterilise will have only been partially successful - the long term risk is an inflated money supply which will feed into higher asset prices
I'd be interested in reactions.
It is quite long. Tom Hollis is the Ashfield Independent Deputy Council Leader.
---------------------------
Part 1
Hollis is an erratic individual with a record of criminality going back in published reports to ~2015 (rather pantomime assault conviction), who is not fit to be a local Councillor and needs to be voted out or have the self-respect to resign, which does not appear to exist.
His previous episode of dishonestly pantomiming faked-up pretend victimhood to fabricated violent threats from a neighbour over a 999 call to the police was shall I cautiously say 'beyond unacceptable', as was hooning down Outram-Street at 60-65mph in his Landrover Plankatank followed by a police vehicle , which he then reportedly reversed into in the Asda forecourt.
Plus the questions around planning matters, and the significant fine recently received for non-declaration of an interest, with the imo rather credulous comments by the District Judge. I am still unsure about whether there are other matters that may still come to light.
The guy imo does not have a place in public life. His vote collapsed but not quite enough.
Fortunately Hollis is not my Councillor; I have sympathy for those for whom he represents, and his colleagues.
Personally, I won't be voting for JZ at the Parliamentary Election either, whilst he has a whole laundry list of charges at Crown Court level hanging over him, which trial he has successively had moved out of the area. That's not on for a candidate in an election.
I had sympathy for JZ in 2015 when warmed over rumours mysteriously 'emerged', just before the 2015 election, when he was kept on tenterhooks for several years and the case was then collapsed at the door of the Court, and have said so to friends and colleagues including my local AI Councillors on the doorstep.
If JZ was serious about clearing his name rather than slightly desperately spinning it out and hoping for the best Trump-style, he would have pushed for an early trial and verdict before any prospect of a General Election. He does not deserve a vote.
Hollis and JZ have both gone way beyond what what is tolerable, as is our pantomine Leeantherthal Man. LA was a good Councillor as I understand from my own observations, and others' experience, who has gone of the rails and lost his way. He does not deserve a vote either.
I think that is a reasonably fair and complete account, which I can adequately defend by reference to published news reports, and the relevant Police and Court records.
I think it fair to describe Ashfield Politics politics over the last 10-20 years at all levels as a "shark-infested custard". A former respected MP for an adjacent constituency who is an acquaintance has repeatedly used the word "asinine" of the politics here. We need better.
Oh well, that hype for the Tory candidate lasted a whole 5 minutes.
Deciding how to vote in the forthcoming General Election is a challenge.
Drawing a cock-and-balls in nearly all the boxes on the ballot paper is one option.
My take on Lee Anderson is that the demonisation of him from London-Lefty circles, and certain local Labour elements reacting to his 'turncoat' behaviour were quite a way off, and self-collapsing.
Imo the ritualised abuse of LA as a "scab" is embarrassing for those doing it, who are performing to themselves; aiui he was actually on the Scargill side of the miners' dispute as a perhaps too ingenuous and easily moulded young man.
Personally I find Keir Morrison in particular a bit of a caricature of the Labour Left. His photobombing of Ed Milliband in a "A Generation of Trade Unionists will dance on Thatchet's Grave" teeshirt which made the front page, which I believe is an accurate report, was imo crass.
Anderson is a genuine local, and has genuine experience of personal and family poverty, and a significant amount of time as a single-dad and CAB worker. That deserves a measure of respect even now.
The rhetoric being used against him does not land on target.
I was happy to support LA when levelling-up was still credible, which is no longer true since the current Govt have quite cynically killed HS2 (which I still strongly support) and have spent at least 2 years reaching for Hail Mary passes rather than trying to be a serious Government aiming to make use of potential UK opportunities-post-Brexit. They have also slashed any commitment to high quality local government or the public realm.
IMO Anderson has gone far too populist, and is pandering to a more extreme constituency than he previously embraced. Going Ref-UK will split his vote and sink him, imo. I think Right-Far RIght is not strong enough in Ashfield to let LA win again, once he has lost the Conservative loyalist vote.
It's not a shoo-in for the Labour candidate at the General Election, but - depending on how loyal AI voters are to JZ, and how well Rhea Keehn comes across, and how sensible her party are, IMO it's there for them to win.
I think Labour may take it from more or less a Gloria type stance plus a firmly locally-interested candidate, That is, not living in the Trent Valley Director Belt Geoff Hoon style, or being a Dennis Skinner died-in-the-wool traditionalist type. Demographic shift, new commuter estates and the Robin Hood line have removed that last possibility in Ashfield in a trend since about 1985. We are no longer "weigh the Labour traditional vote" nor yet "middle-class / diverse community" left, which are the two firmly-Labour constituency patterns in 2024 afaics.
LibDems will be nowhere because the AIs are still camped on their voter-base (and in their shop unit).
That more on various people than I would usually say in such a public forum, but I think the view is again defensible.
Others are welcome to disagree with any of my thinking, of course.
And the thing is: even if you watch the videos, as you claim, I bet you don't apply your self-acclaimed 'high IQ' into considering whether what you're watching is true, or the whole story.
It's a trap we can all fall into, but you don't even seem to have apply the 'is this true' filter.
1. It simplifies providing support if you don't have to check everyone's income.
2. It avoids creating a disincentive to increasing earnings, if a small increase in pay might take someone from just below a threshold to just above, and then end up worse off.
3. It supports a general policy objective of increasing the birth rate towards the replacement level, so that the demographic transition is less severe.
So who's disincentivised for taking a pay rise that costs them a benefit that they won't be eligible to in 12 months time anyway?
It was noticeable that they left the 2 child limit in place; I have seen some commentary, which I have not checked for accuracy, that removing it would have lifted 250k children out of poverty,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane#/media/File:Village_martyr_d'Oradour-sur-Glane_10.jpg
But a video of an alleged shooting, where the poster says it is of A shooting B, can be very misleading. Is it of a real shooting, or of the even t described? Is A the perpetrator, and the victim B, or actually vice versa? This is something we see in the current Ukraine war, where the same picture has been shown by both sides, and I, as a non-expert, have little idea if it is a Ukrainian T72 tank or a Russian one. In fact, the people who posted it probably do not, either.
It is why you need other trusted sources - and even they can get it wrong. If they get it wrong frequently, they should not be trusted...
And then you say that even if I do watch these videos I probably don’t apply my high intelligence because because because and then anyway I don’t get the full story and I don’t know if it’s true but anyway anyway this is something we all do but anyway also I “DON’T EVEN SEEM TO HAVE APPLY THE IS THIS”
Frankly, I’m devastated. And this is only the day after the camaraderie of our 20th PB birthday festivities
And you just toss out cruel and heartless critiques like “I DON’T EVEN SEEM TO HAVE APPLY THE IS THIS”
I need to swim. I might not comment again
Rishi Sunak targets 'arrogant' Starmer at Tory local election launch
I actually cannot believe this is happening. HOW is Rishi Sunak this bad. Every day he gets worse.
1. True, but most are under PAYE where eligible for support. There are various other things which are means tested including nursery places etc. I think most people assume they're eligible until they're not.
2. Agreed, but not sure child benefit is material enough to impact decisions over £100k.
3. We need to do more on this, I agree. The threshold could be higher, for example. For those on £200k it's simply not going to be a contributing factor to whether they have children.
I would almost go a step further and cancel / scale back child support and replace it with significantly increased early years care and support. The period prior to school is the most acute financially.
Maybe not even the top one thousand.
My eldest son attended ground zero at the Christchurch earthquake and the horror and sights he saw precipitated serous PTSD several years later with him having electro convulsive treatment in a Vancouver clinic.
On a phone call in his worst moments he described the sights and sounds in graphic and tearful detail that really upset me, and brought home just how many of us wanting to help in a tragedy cannot wipe away that which they witness
Thankfully he is finally in a good place and is coming over in May with his wife to our Diamond Wedding anniversary, but I would just say I do not share your views on this and fully support those who do not want to seek out graphic details
Lets face it, nobody goes around looking at gory images because they want to get to the truth.
We can have such interesting, and often long, almost entirely text-based discussions on this site, precisely because such imagery is not required.
By and large we all operate with the same field of facts. Where we disagree normally comes down to personal opinions on those facts due to having differing morals, priorities, thoughts, logic, interpretations, concerns, preferences etc
I can have wildly differing views on someone else, on the same issue, while recognising their facts because my priorities are not theirs and vice-versa.
I remember when I had two kids under three: on any given day they went to nursery - and it wasn't a particularly fancy nursery - it cost me more than I earned in that day. I was basically working so I was still employable when they went to school.
Ofcom have manifestly failed in their duty to protect the public. Before Openreach were allowed to do it, they should have mandated bolstering the mobile networks and requiring backup power in the case of a power cut. On the current trajectory people are going to be left cut off.
7 because someone else who has a backbone, unlike you, has sat down and watched the video of the atrocities. The Israeli government specifically pieced together a montage of these videos - from cctv, GoPro, etc - so people - journalists etc - could watch what Hamas did and then form their own judgments - and then tell quivering saps like you what they saw and what Hamas did
So the imagery IS required if you are going to have
your “text based discussions”. Or you have nothing to talk about. You just get it second hand, that’s the only difference; you rely on someone else’s opinion to form your own opinion, which just makes you more ignorant, rather than some ascetic saint who abhors depravity
Defund the Police have got their ambition have they?
(* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election )
Typical media saying one thing and doing the other