On topic, sewage spills and water quality are hugely effective campaigning issues. There are local examples just about everywhere, and a palpable sense that it's got significantly worse. It's also a particularly strong issue for getting the soft Tories on board - not wanting shit in rivers isn't a culture wars issue.
How much extra are they willing to pay either on their bills on through their taxes for this to happen.
There's a large aspect of differential levels of attention in sewage spills - that has been the practice forever yet has only recently become a prominent issue.
There is also a great pretence that it is linked to the particular ownership of a company, which is a creation of those looking for stones to throw at privatisation - incorporating the fiction of improved performance by non-profit or publicly owned water companies.
I suggest that the data in the header - identified by the Times as "Source: Environmental Agency via Liberal Democrats" - qualifies as politics-based evidence by the Lib Dems in support of their policy.
IMO there's a very good reason they have not supplied data for Wales and Scotland; it would hole their claims beneath the waterline.
All the more appropriate as (ISTR) the original bridge is the one over the Thames on the paths from Dorchester-on-Thames through the promontory fort to Wittenham Clumps/Pendon Museum.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
No duty, but Russia holding onto its gains or making more gains does not feel like it would be a positive outcome for US international interests. They've gained some NATO members but leaving morals aside and just going full cynic there's surely national benefit to be had for the USA to help blunt Russia's military even more, rather than push Ukraine towards a deal.
On the contrary, Congress does have a duty to vote on the matter. How they vote is up to them, but aid has the support of the majority.
We are going to have to get used to the USA becoming isolationist again. If we want to protect British and European freedoms we are going to have to do it ourselves.
If Trump's reelected that's clear. But it's not inevitable.
Re the fags, every single person I know who smokes (including the ones I knew who have died of it) wishes they could give it up but can’t. Perhaps a gradually exerted external pressure is the only way to do it, even with the weird age differential thing, though I fear it’s too late for the likes of eg my brother.
I wonder how many of the noisy libertarians smoke themselves? The price of liberty is other hopelessly addicted people dying of lung cancer.
They get wound up about people looking at their LinkedIn profile I understand.
Siri, show me the most left field example of someone making an entirely unconnected post about them.
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
The BBC report seems quite sympathetic.
I think Nudge can have value, as can softer edged enforcement. I think the concern about "what about telling the difference between an X year old and an X+1 year old" may be overdone in practice. It gives a time to adapt, as when stopping smoking is not easy to go from Zero to Hero in one jump.
I think a softer edged change - as a nudge which gradually goes into stronger enforcement over a period of years - may be one way of gradually ramping the reform in.
A 33 year old is tricky to tell from a 32 year old, but the practice in many shops for alcohol is to challenge "those who our staff think may be under 25" rather than trying to tell (say) a 17 year old from an 18 year old. There's no reason why the same approach cannot be used here - and before long it will be "no one under 30 can purchase tobacco", when teens will be clearly identifiable.
Do I think it will work? Not sure, and I'd like to hear of any alternative proposals.
@Ratters first point seems strange - how does regulation of sale of tobacco affect vaping, which aiui only carries the nicotine across, not the tobacco?
Mr Sunak is overegging the "unique contribution to public health" claims. There are plenty of other things that need to be done - UK law for example pretty uniquely in Europe permits seriously alcohol impaired driving, and we have had strong evidence of that for many years - yet Sunak and our last 10 or 15 roads ministers have ignored that major public health issue. The same goes for the behaviour of young male drivers, who are a far greater risk to the public than others, including young female drivers.
No, UK law doesn't allow "seriously alcohol impaired driving"
IIRC all (for some absurdly high value of percentage) drink driving is now people who are way, way over the limit. The half bottle of Scotch and some beers types.
The lower(ed) Scottish limit had no effect on accidents, IIRC.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
What part of the current trend towards the population not smoking nearly as much suggests we need new illiberal legislation banning sales to the generation that will smoke less for their age than any previous group?
The second hand smoke argument is a load of codswallop because they are banning vaping and nicotine patches as well which doesn't generate second hand smoke.
The trend is good, but we want people to get to zero quicker.
I’m not aware of any other product with a 50% death rate for regular use that we allow to be sold legally.
What do ultra processed foods clock in at?
They don't, because the category is too vague.
"ultra processed food" is the perfect grifter slogan:
There's a grain of truth in it. Chemically designing food gives the opportunity to reduce costs by making it less healthy, and food producers should be held to account. We need better ways to quantify and assure the health value of food products. However-
The term "UPF" is vague, making it not useful for the individual. This provides great opportunities for grifters to a) publish scary clickbait and b) set themselves up as an authority on what food or is not UPF.
It provides the perfect opportunity for status signalling, as wealthier people can invest money or time in artisanally produced or prepared food.And for status seekers to witter on about the best way to avoid it in an evidence free way.
It provides an opportunity for low efficiency producers to sell food as "less processed" at a high markup, irrespective of whether it is more healthy
The population is too large to rely on food produced or prepared artisanally, unless possibly they prepare it themselves out of raw ingredients. But giving up on economic specialism in the area of food preparation would be huge cost on society. Do we really believe that our economic system is incapable of enforcing the evaluation and optimization of the health value of food products, to the extent that we can never trust anything except raw ingredients? That would be a really basic failure.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
My own view has not wavered: given Putin's aims, we cannot afford for him to gain something he can sell as a 'win'. Because that will encourage him (and other malicious state actors) to just do more of the same.
Part of the problem is that the "peace now!" appeasers don't argue their position. They say we should give Putin what he wants for 'peace', yet brave-Sir-Robin when it is pointed out that will lead to more war. I take it that is because they realise their position is morally bankrupt.
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
If the problem is the nicotine addiction, why not ban cigarettes from containing more than a completely ineffective amount of nicotine? The addicts would be forced onto vapes, which are no doubt unhealthy but nowhere near as bad, and don't have such a problem with secondary smoking.
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
"I am a liberal. I think people should be free."
An important point about smoking is that it is not just a choice for you: if you smoke, you potentially affect the people around you, who might have made a free choice not to breathe in sickly smoke. So it is not just your freedom, but of those around you.
There are considerate smokers, but also very many inconsiderate ones. Is a ban a way of stopping the latter? i doubt it.
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
Well, only smokers would need ID, under current proposals (creep to other things would be a different concern).
I explained earlier why I narrowly oppose this, but I do think it will work in practice. Initially it will effect only those who are routinely asked for ID anyway. Once todays 18 year olds are 25, they're probably - if non smokers - less likely to try to start anyway, but in theory they will also be getting asked for ID - the challenge 25 policy for cigarettes will increase by one year each year. But even if there is some error around the edges, the fact is that in 10 years time anyone who looks under 28 (or probably 35) is going to get asked for ID. In 20 years anyone who doesn't look middle aged. The falling market is likely to lead to fewer stockists, too. Realistically, being a smoker in 20-30 years time under these rules will be an epic pain in the arse in terms of availability and hassle.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
My own view has not wavered: given Putin's aims, we cannot afford for him to gain something he can sell as a 'win'. Because that will encourage him (and other malicious state actors) to just do more of the same.
Part of the problem is that the "peace now!" appeasers don't argue their position. They say we should give Putin what he wants for 'peace', yet brave-Sir-Robin when it is pointed out that will lead to more war. I take it that is because they realise their position is morally bankrupt.
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
The BBC report seems quite sympathetic.
I think Nudge can have value, as can softer edged enforcement. I think the concern about "what about telling the difference between an X year old and an X+1 year old" may be overdone in practice. It gives a time to adapt, as when stopping smoking is not easy to go from Zero to Hero in one jump.
I think a softer edged change - as a nudge which gradually goes into stronger enforcement over a period of years - may be one way of gradually ramping the reform in.
A 33 year old is tricky to tell from a 32 year old, but the practice in many shops for alcohol is to challenge "those who our staff think may be under 25" rather than trying to tell (say) a 17 year old from an 18 year old. There's no reason why the same approach cannot be used here - and before long it will be "no one under 30 can purchase tobacco", when teens will be clearly identifiable.
Do I think it will work? Not sure, and I'd like to hear of any alternative proposals.
@Ratters first point seems strange - how does regulation of sale of tobacco affect vaping, which aiui only carries the nicotine across, not the tobacco?
OK so the cut-off for buying fags is 32 and under your scheme shops will "think 40" but how do we prove we are over 40 (and over 32) without carrying ID cards?
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
Let's ban work then and increase people's liberty !!!!
I think it's important to have funded proposals. Do you have a budgetary analysis available?
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
Let's ban work then and increase people's liberty !!!!
I think it's important to have funded proposals. Do you have a budgetary analysis available?
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
If the problem is the nicotine addiction, why not ban cigarettes from containing more than a completely ineffective amount of nicotine? The addicts would be forced onto vapes, which are no doubt unhealthy but nowhere near as bad, and don't have such a problem with secondary smoking.
I'm all for moving towards stricter controls on cigarettes. Sunak's bill does that. It's a step in the right direction. To oppose it because it doesn't go even further would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
But not alcohol?
I haven't said anything about alcohol, but if you want to talk about alcohol, I'd start by observing that alcohol is nowhere remotely as addictive as nicotine. The vast majority of people who drink are not addicted.
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
Well, only smokers would need ID, under current proposals (creep to other things would be a different concern).
I explained earlier why I narrowly oppose this, but I do think it will work in practice. Initially it will effect only those who are routinely asked for ID anyway. Once todays 18 year olds are 25, they're probably - if non smokers - less likely to try to start anyway, but in theory they will also be getting asked for ID - the challenge 25 policy for cigarettes will increase by one year each year. But even if there is some error around the edges, the fact is that in 10 years time anyone who looks under 28 (or probably 35) is going to get asked for ID. In 20 years anyone who doesn't look middle aged. The falling market is likely to lead to fewer stockists, too. Realistically, being a smoker in 20-30 years time under these rules will be an epic pain in the arse in terms of availability and hassle.
You are assuming the AI till cant just read your age from your mandatory id embedded in your arm......
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
The BBC report seems quite sympathetic.
I think Nudge can have value, as can softer edged enforcement. I think the concern about "what about telling the difference between an X year old and an X+1 year old" may be overdone in practice. It gives a time to adapt, as when stopping smoking is not easy to go from Zero to Hero in one jump.
I think a softer edged change - as a nudge which gradually goes into stronger enforcement over a period of years - may be one way of gradually ramping the reform in.
A 33 year old is tricky to tell from a 32 year old, but the practice in many shops for alcohol is to challenge "those who our staff think may be under 25" rather than trying to tell (say) a 17 year old from an 18 year old. There's no reason why the same approach cannot be used here - and before long it will be "no one under 30 can purchase tobacco", when teens will be clearly identifiable.
Do I think it will work? Not sure, and I'd like to hear of any alternative proposals.
@Ratters first point seems strange - how does regulation of sale of tobacco affect vaping, which aiui only carries the nicotine across, not the tobacco?
Mr Sunak is overegging the "unique contribution to public health" claims. There are plenty of other things that need to be done - UK law for example pretty uniquely in Europe permits seriously alcohol impaired driving, and we have had strong evidence of that for many years - yet Sunak and our last 10 or 15 roads ministers have ignored that major public health issue. The same goes for the behaviour of young male drivers, who are a far greater risk to the public than others, including young female drivers.
Given that the prefrontal cortex doesn’t develop fully until the mid twenties, there is a case for raising the minimum driving age to 25, or at least prohibiting under 25s from carrying passengers. I wonder if smoking was banned until people were 25, how many would start smoking after 25?
What part of the current trend towards the population not smoking nearly as much suggests we need new illiberal legislation banning sales to the generation that will smoke less for their age than any previous group?
The second hand smoke argument is a load of codswallop because they are banning vaping and nicotine patches as well which doesn't generate second hand smoke.
The trend is good, but we want people to get to zero quicker.
I’m not aware of any other product with a 50% death rate for regular use that we allow to be sold legally.
What do ultra processed foods clock in at?
They don't, because the category is too vague.
"ultra processed food" is the perfect grifter slogan:
There's a grain of truth in it. Chemically designing food gives the opportunity to reduce costs by making it less healthy, and food producers should be held to account. We need better ways to quantify and assure the health value of food products. However-
The term "UPF" is vague, making it not useful for the individual. This provides great opportunities for grifters to a) publish scary clickbait and b) set themselves up as an authority on what food or is not UPF.
It provides the perfect opportunity for status signalling, as wealthier people can invest money or time in artisanally produced or prepared food.And for status seekers to witter on about the best way to avoid it in an evidence free way.
It provides an opportunity for low efficiency producers to sell food as "less processed" at a high markup, irrespective of whether it is more healthy
The population is too large to rely on food produced or prepared artisanally, unless possibly they prepare it themselves out of raw ingredients. But giving up on economic specialism in the area of food preparation would be huge cost on society. Do we really believe that our economic system is incapable of enforcing the evaluation and optimization of the health value of food products, to the extent that we can never trust anything except raw ingredients? That would be a really basic failure.
Well I would say we can't trust the status quo on food for sure, and it has been a massive societal failure and cause of far too many health issues and deaths.
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
The BBC report seems quite sympathetic.
I think Nudge can have value, as can softer edged enforcement. I think the concern about "what about telling the difference between an X year old and an X+1 year old" may be overdone in practice. It gives a time to adapt, as when stopping smoking is not easy to go from Zero to Hero in one jump.
I think a softer edged change - as a nudge which gradually goes into stronger enforcement over a period of years - may be one way of gradually ramping the reform in.
A 33 year old is tricky to tell from a 32 year old, but the practice in many shops for alcohol is to challenge "those who our staff think may be under 25" rather than trying to tell (say) a 17 year old from an 18 year old. There's no reason why the same approach cannot be used here - and before long it will be "no one under 30 can purchase tobacco", when teens will be clearly identifiable.
Do I think it will work? Not sure, and I'd like to hear of any alternative proposals.
@Ratters first point seems strange - how does regulation of sale of tobacco affect vaping, which aiui only carries the nicotine across, not the tobacco?
OK so the cut-off for buying fags is 32 and under your scheme shops will "think 40" but how do we prove we are over 40 (and over 32) without carrying ID cards?
You carry some sort of proof of age. Various proof of age schemes currently exist for a variety of purposes.
I was stopped from buying alcohol in a supermarket when I was in my forties (until my then girlfriend laughed at the cashier!). We live in a society with some age checks. It's not going to be complicated to extend that.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
My own view has not wavered: given Putin's aims, we cannot afford for him to gain something he can sell as a 'win'. Because that will encourage him (and other malicious state actors) to just do more of the same.
Part of the problem is that the "peace now!" appeasers don't argue their position. They say we should give Putin what he wants for 'peace', yet brave-Sir-Robin when it is pointed out that will lead to more war. I take it that is because they realise their position is morally bankrupt.
Your own view requires western boots on the ground and even conscription of our young people. If thats what you want fair enough be honest but flag waving and occasional aid from the west is no longer enough.
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
Well, only smokers would need ID, under current proposals (creep to other things would be a different concern).
I explained earlier why I narrowly oppose this, but I do think it will work in practice. Initially it will effect only those who are routinely asked for ID anyway. Once todays 18 year olds are 25, they're probably - if non smokers - less likely to try to start anyway, but in theory they will also be getting asked for ID - the challenge 25 policy for cigarettes will increase by one year each year. But even if there is some error around the edges, the fact is that in 10 years time anyone who looks under 28 (or probably 35) is going to get asked for ID. In 20 years anyone who doesn't look middle aged. The falling market is likely to lead to fewer stockists, too. Realistically, being a smoker in 20-30 years time under these rules will be an epic pain in the arse in terms of availability and hassle.
You are assuming the AI till cant just read your age from your mandatory id embedded in your arm......
Back of the neck. Not everybody has an arm. Tut. See also "eyeball".
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
Well, only smokers would need ID, under current proposals (creep to other things would be a different concern).
I explained earlier why I narrowly oppose this, but I do think it will work in practice. Initially it will effect only those who are routinely asked for ID anyway. Once todays 18 year olds are 25, they're probably - if non smokers - less likely to try to start anyway, but in theory they will also be getting asked for ID - the challenge 25 policy for cigarettes will increase by one year each year. But even if there is some error around the edges, the fact is that in 10 years time anyone who looks under 28 (or probably 35) is going to get asked for ID. In 20 years anyone who doesn't look middle aged. The falling market is likely to lead to fewer stockists, too. Realistically, being a smoker in 20-30 years time under these rules will be an epic pain in the arse in terms of availability and hassle.
You are assuming the AI till cant just read your age from your mandatory id embedded in your arm......
Back of the neck. Not everybody has an arm. Tut. See also "eyeball".
Yeah, facial recognition may be sufficient for id in 30 years time anyway. But I doubt society will look as similar then as people debating this are assuming.
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
Well, only smokers would need ID, under current proposals (creep to other things would be a different concern).
I explained earlier why I narrowly oppose this, but I do think it will work in practice. Initially it will effect only those who are routinely asked for ID anyway. Once todays 18 year olds are 25, they're probably - if non smokers - less likely to try to start anyway, but in theory they will also be getting asked for ID - the challenge 25 policy for cigarettes will increase by one year each year. But even if there is some error around the edges, the fact is that in 10 years time anyone who looks under 28 (or probably 35) is going to get asked for ID. In 20 years anyone who doesn't look middle aged. The falling market is likely to lead to fewer stockists, too. Realistically, being a smoker in 20-30 years time under these rules will be an epic pain in the arse in terms of availability and hassle.
Damn. Hope no one suffered ill effects or was in any way affected by my incorrect use of 'effect' to mean 'affect' and that it will have no effect on my standing here - I would hate for my reputation to be affected. To be effective, my attention to grammar needs to be seen as more than an affectation
I’d be open to a tobacco ban as part of a wide-ranging review of all drugs laws, that are evidence-based and toxicity and risk to others.
When Professor David Nutt did exactly this for the government, and found that mushrooms and ecstasy should be legalised as they were such low harm, he was hounded out.
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
But not alcohol?
I haven't said anything about alcohol, but if you want to talk about alcohol, I'd start by observing that alcohol is nowhere remotely as addictive as nicotine. The vast majority of people who drink are not addicted.
It's just that you concluded by saying "We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug". That seems to be a general statement about addictive drugs.
Did you mean to say "We increase liberty by banning drugs that are sufficiently addictive"? The trouble is that that would involve a balance between different kinds of liberty, and it wouldn't be possible to justify the ban on the simplistic level that many people are arguing on.
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
The BBC report seems quite sympathetic.
I think Nudge can have value, as can softer edged enforcement. I think the concern about "what about telling the difference between an X year old and an X+1 year old" may be overdone in practice. It gives a time to adapt, as when stopping smoking is not easy to go from Zero to Hero in one jump.
I think a softer edged change - as a nudge which gradually goes into stronger enforcement over a period of years - may be one way of gradually ramping the reform in.
A 33 year old is tricky to tell from a 32 year old, but the practice in many shops for alcohol is to challenge "those who our staff think may be under 25" rather than trying to tell (say) a 17 year old from an 18 year old. There's no reason why the same approach cannot be used here - and before long it will be "no one under 30 can purchase tobacco", when teens will be clearly identifiable.
Do I think it will work? Not sure, and I'd like to hear of any alternative proposals.
@Ratters first point seems strange - how does regulation of sale of tobacco affect vaping, which aiui only carries the nicotine across, not the tobacco?
OK so the cut-off for buying fags is 32 and under your scheme shops will "think 40" but how do we prove we are over 40 (and over 32) without carrying ID cards?
You carry some sort of proof of age. Various proof of age schemes currently exist for a variety of purposes.
I was stopped from buying alcohol in a supermarket when I was in my forties (until my then girlfriend laughed at the cashier!). We live in a society with some age checks. It's not going to be complicated to extend that.
It will not be complicated, you are right, but it might be controversial to require ever larger sections of the population to carry de facto ID cards. Given there are many advocates of ID cards in London SW1, softening us up might be the point.
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
Well, only smokers would need ID, under current proposals (creep to other things would be a different concern).
I explained earlier why I narrowly oppose this, but I do think it will work in practice. Initially it will effect only those who are routinely asked for ID anyway. Once todays 18 year olds are 25, they're probably - if non smokers - less likely to try to start anyway, but in theory they will also be getting asked for ID - the challenge 25 policy for cigarettes will increase by one year each year. But even if there is some error around the edges, the fact is that in 10 years time anyone who looks under 28 (or probably 35) is going to get asked for ID. In 20 years anyone who doesn't look middle aged. The falling market is likely to lead to fewer stockists, too. Realistically, being a smoker in 20-30 years time under these rules will be an epic pain in the arse in terms of availability and hassle.
Damn. Hope no one suffered ill effects or was in any way affected by my incorrect use of 'effect' to mean 'affect' and that it will have no effect on my standing here - I would hate for my reputation to be affected. To be effective, my attention to grammar needs to be seen as more than an affectation
Interestingly uk inflation fell less than exoected this month. With the crb commodity price index hitting multi year highs this is not surprising. But now only 1 rate cut is pencilled in this year which means those resetting 2 and 5 year fixed mortgages will continue ti cause tremendous pain. This doesnt help the govt.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
Oh do fuck off.
Why be snide about other posters just because they disagree with you?
Perhaps those of us supportive of Ukraine have tired of your snide remarks, and those of others willing to abandon a democracy to conquest by a dictatorship?
I don't need to justify my support of Ukraine or fulfil a quota of parts about the subject to satisfy you that my resolve hasn't wavered. Fuck off and keep fucking off.
Gosh, you're quoting Jess Phillips !!!!
I will be honest. I don't even know who you are and cannot recall seeing anything you have posted.
I support Ukraine, of course, however people who are rational on it but not flag waving Ultras get labelled Putinists for no good reason. I was, once, for not wanting British troops in Ukraine. It is a purity test from the GWB/Rumsfeld tendency on the matter.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Interestingly uk inflation fell less than exoected this month. With the crb commodity price index hitting multi year highs this is not surprising. But now only 1 rate cut is pencilled in this year which means those resetting 2 and 5 year fixed mortgages will continue ti cause tremendous pain. This doesnt help the govt.
Interestingly uk inflation fell less than exoected this month. With the crb commodity price index hitting multi year highs this is not surprising. But now only 1 rate cut is pencilled in this year which means those resetting 2 and 5 year fixed mortgages will continue ti cause tremendous pain. This doesnt help the govt.
It helps savers though.
Pay rises and high savings rates mean a lot of people are doing very well currently.
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
Well, only smokers would need ID, under current proposals (creep to other things would be a different concern).
I explained earlier why I narrowly oppose this, but I do think it will work in practice. Initially it will effect only those who are routinely asked for ID anyway. Once todays 18 year olds are 25, they're probably - if non smokers - less likely to try to start anyway, but in theory they will also be getting asked for ID - the challenge 25 policy for cigarettes will increase by one year each year. But even if there is some error around the edges, the fact is that in 10 years time anyone who looks under 28 (or probably 35) is going to get asked for ID. In 20 years anyone who doesn't look middle aged. The falling market is likely to lead to fewer stockists, too. Realistically, being a smoker in 20-30 years time under these rules will be an epic pain in the arse in terms of availability and hassle.
Damn. Hope no one suffered ill effects or was in any way affected by my incorrect use of 'effect' to mean 'affect' and that it will have no effect on my standing here - I would hate for my reputation to be affected. To be effective, my attention to grammar needs to be seen as more than an affectation
I think you've dodged the ban hammer
One day my habit of typos will get me banned when I try to write about the Chancellor
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
My own view has not wavered: given Putin's aims, we cannot afford for him to gain something he can sell as a 'win'. Because that will encourage him (and other malicious state actors) to just do more of the same.
Part of the problem is that the "peace now!" appeasers don't argue their position. They say we should give Putin what he wants for 'peace', yet brave-Sir-Robin when it is pointed out that will lead to more war. I take it that is because they realise their position is morally bankrupt.
Your own view requires western boots on the ground and even conscription of our young people. If thats what you want fair enough be honest but flag waving and occasional aid from the west is no longer enough.
No it doesn't, troll.
It might require delaying a tax cut for a year or two to fund increased weapons manufacture.
"Fiona Parker @fiona_parker14 Former PO investigator Jon Longman - who was involved in the wrongful conviction of Seema Misra - will give evidence today. Ms Misra told The Telegraph she was “disappointed” he would be appearing remotely. She had wanted to “look him in the eyes”."
Interestingly uk inflation fell less than exoected this month. With the crb commodity price index hitting multi year highs this is not surprising. But now only 1 rate cut is pencilled in this year which means those resetting 2 and 5 year fixed mortgages will continue ti cause tremendous pain. This doesnt help the govt.
It helps savers though.
Pay rises and high savings rates mean a lot of people are doing very well currently.
Yes but those are generally boomers with paid off properties. This just exagerrates inter generational tensions.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
My own view has not wavered: given Putin's aims, we cannot afford for him to gain something he can sell as a 'win'. Because that will encourage him (and other malicious state actors) to just do more of the same.
Part of the problem is that the "peace now!" appeasers don't argue their position. They say we should give Putin what he wants for 'peace', yet brave-Sir-Robin when it is pointed out that will lead to more war. I take it that is because they realise their position is morally bankrupt.
Your own view requires western boots on the ground and even conscription of our young people. If thats what you want fair enough be honest but flag waving and occasional aid from the west is no longer enough.
My own view does *not* require that - the Ukrainians have shown that if we give them the tools, they can use them very effectively. But the longer we leave giving Ukraine more tools, the more likely it is for the war to spread and drag us in. Because Putin and others crave to expand their 'empires'; and the consequences of such expansion will eventually become intolerable.
Where are your red lines? Who are you willing to hand over to a fascist empire?
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Why do you think a 'ceasefire' will be anything other than a temporary respite before Putin grabs more?
Politically I think like seatbelts there will be huffing and puffing but the policy will be broadly welcomed.
In theory I'm against it, as was I in theory against lowering the stakes on FOBTs but there is no doubt that both smoking and high stakes FOBTs cause immense harm.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Ceasefire on current lines isn't happening because Putin has no interest in it.
There's a persistent misunderstanding of Putin, his motivations and intentions.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
Oh do fuck off.
Why be snide about other posters just because they disagree with you?
Perhaps those of us supportive of Ukraine have tired of your snide remarks, and those of others willing to abandon a democracy to conquest by a dictatorship?
I don't need to justify my support of Ukraine or fulfil a quota of parts about the subject to satisfy you that my resolve hasn't wavered. Fuck off and keep fucking off.
Gosh, you're quoting Jess Phillips !!!!
I will be honest. I don't even know who you are and cannot recall seeing anything you have posted.
I support Ukraine, of course, however people who are rational on it but not flag waving Ultras get labelled Putinists for no good reason. I was, once, for not wanting British troops in Ukraine. It is a purity test from the GWB/Rumsfeld tendency on the matter.
Enjoy your day and back to anonymity.
Respond to that one individual then instead of making sweeping group accusations that piss off people you can't even remember.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
Inside the disinformation industry - how a “ratings agency” called the Global Disinformation Index determines that ad revenues be withheld from @unherd for .. er… publishing me.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Ceasefire on current lines isn't happening because Putin has no interest in it.
There's a persistent misunderstanding of Putin, his motivations and intentions.
I've said this before, but it's worth saying again: back in 2022 I was amazed at what Putin and the Russian media was saying. They were not trying to label this as a small war, with limited aims. Instead, they were threatening everyone like a drunken matelot in a tuppenny brothel.
The reason seems obvious: Putin's long-term strategic aims are not small and limited. They are for a return of something akin to the USSR. Ukraine was always meant to be just the start.
So there is the moral issue of whether we should allow that, and subject millions of people to the consequences of Russian fascism. And if we do, how long before the resulting new cold war turns hot.
The best time to stop Putin is now. The better time was in 2016. Or 2014. Or 2008. The worse times are in the future.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Ceasefire on current lines isn't happening because Putin has no interest in it.
There's a persistent misunderstanding of Putin, his motivations and intentions.
It wont hapoen because sadly russia is winning and the ukrainians are now refusing to fight.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
What is the flaw in our liberal democracies though that means so many people want Putin to win.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Ceasefire on current lines isn't happening because Putin has no interest in it.
There's a persistent misunderstanding of Putin, his motivations and intentions.
It wont hapoen because sadly russia is winning and the ukrainians are now refusing to fight.
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
Well, only smokers would need ID, under current proposals (creep to other things would be a different concern).
I explained earlier why I narrowly oppose this, but I do think it will work in practice. Initially it will effect only those who are routinely asked for ID anyway. Once todays 18 year olds are 25, they're probably - if non smokers - less likely to try to start anyway, but in theory they will also be getting asked for ID - the challenge 25 policy for cigarettes will increase by one year each year. But even if there is some error around the edges, the fact is that in 10 years time anyone who looks under 28 (or probably 35) is going to get asked for ID. In 20 years anyone who doesn't look middle aged. The falling market is likely to lead to fewer stockists, too. Realistically, being a smoker in 20-30 years time under these rules will be an epic pain in the arse in terms of availability and hassle.
To eliminate smoking entirely and for good you have to focus on the children who are still, despite everything, taking it up and get that down to zero. Knowing they will never be able to legally buy cigarettes will discourage them starting in the first place, that's objective number one, and for those that do (kids being kids), the hassle of getting hold of the things (once the ban kicks in for them) will be enough to finish the job. That's the thinking. If I were an MP I'd vote for it with a degree of enthusiasm.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Ceasefire on current lines isn't happening because Putin has no interest in it.
There's a persistent misunderstanding of Putin, his motivations and intentions.
It wont hapoen because sadly russia is winning and the ukrainians are now refusing to fight.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Ceasefire on current lines isn't happening because Putin has no interest in it.
There's a persistent misunderstanding of Putin, his motivations and intentions.
It wont hapoen because sadly russia is winning and the ukrainians are now refusing to fight.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
What is the flaw in our liberal democracies though that means so many people want Putin to win.
Do 'so many people want Putin to win'? Or do they just have loud voices, paid or otherwise?
Amazon categories are always good fun. "Philisopher Biographies".
'Lessons from the only Conservative in the room'? Who's that then? And why is Truss the person passing those lessons on?
Liz Truss was "the only Conservative in the room" at overseas summits where America, Canada, France and Germany were all ruled by lefties. She has said as much.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
Putin's biggest allies are those on the right, especially the American right, who see Putin as a fellow hard man keeping the Muslims in check. They don't really care much about Ukraine. In addition, their unconditional support of the Israeli devastation of Gaza is alienating the US to swathes of countries across the world and scuppering any chances of proper sanctions against Russia.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
I don't want Putin to win. The problem with the Ukraine Ultras here is the Donald Rumsfeld/Dubya mindset. You are either with them 100% or against them.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Ceasefire on current lines isn't happening because Putin has no interest in it.
There's a persistent misunderstanding of Putin, his motivations and intentions.
It wont hapoen because sadly russia is winning and the ukrainians are now refusing to fight.
Amazon categories are always good fun. "Philisopher Biographies".
'Lessons from the only Conservative in the room'? Who's that then? And why is Truss the person passing those lessons on?
Liz Truss was "the only Conservative in the room" at overseas summits where America, Canada, France and Germany were all ruled by lefties. She has said as much.
Sometimes I feel I might be the only PBer stupid enough to have wasted the last couple of days watching Liz Truss interviews. And you call yourself politics nerds!
Mr. Jessop, I wonder if Georgia might be next on Putin's list. He's already invaded it at least once (and I think it's twice, though one time was during Medvedev's 'leadership', if I remember correctly).
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
The BBC report seems quite sympathetic.
I think Nudge can have value, as can softer edged enforcement. I think the concern about "what about telling the difference between an X year old and an X+1 year old" may be overdone in practice. It gives a time to adapt, as when stopping smoking is not easy to go from Zero to Hero in one jump.
I think a softer edged change - as a nudge which gradually goes into stronger enforcement over a period of years - may be one way of gradually ramping the reform in.
A 33 year old is tricky to tell from a 32 year old, but the practice in many shops for alcohol is to challenge "those who our staff think may be under 25" rather than trying to tell (say) a 17 year old from an 18 year old. There's no reason why the same approach cannot be used here - and before long it will be "no one under 30 can purchase tobacco", when teens will be clearly identifiable.
Do I think it will work? Not sure, and I'd like to hear of any alternative proposals.
@Ratters first point seems strange - how does regulation of sale of tobacco affect vaping, which aiui only carries the nicotine across, not the tobacco?
Mr Sunak is overegging the "unique contribution to public health" claims. There are plenty of other things that need to be done - UK law for example pretty uniquely in Europe permits seriously alcohol impaired driving, and we have had strong evidence of that for many years - yet Sunak and our last 10 or 15 roads ministers have ignored that major public health issue. The same goes for the behaviour of young male drivers, who are a far greater risk to the public than others, including young female drivers.
Given that the prefrontal cortex doesn’t develop fully until the mid twenties, there is a case for raising the minimum driving age to 25, or at least prohibiting under 25s from carrying passengers. I wonder if smoking was banned until people were 25, how many would start smoking after 25?
IMO it would need a graduated introduction of the driving license over a period of several years, and perhaps a different regime for women and men. That latter would make it crystal clear that the problem is mainly young men, not young women.
At the moment Transport Ministers think that trying to improve Road Safety is somehow "anti-driver", which imo is just another delusional political lie they are telling themselves; it will vanish into the dustbin of history with this Government.
I’d be open to a tobacco ban as part of a wide-ranging review of all drugs laws, that are evidence-based and toxicity and risk to others.
When Professor David Nutt did exactly this for the government, and found that mushrooms and ecstasy should be legalised as they were such low harm, he was hounded out.
Focusing on just one drug is nonsensical.
Government, as Truss never learnt, is the art of the possible. There is nothing nonsensical about focusing on tobacco/nicotine products in one bill.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
Putin's biggest allies are those on the right, especially the American right, who see Putin as a fellow hard man keeping the Muslims in check. They don't really care much about Ukraine. In addition, their unconditional support of the Israeli devastation of Gaza is alienating the US to swathes of countries across the world and scuppering any chances of proper sanctions against Russia.
Umm Biden is still US president - though maybe you mean he is on the right?
Putin has called himself a defender of Islam, and has condemned the decadent West for allowing people to insult the prophet Mohammed...
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
But not alcohol?
I haven't said anything about alcohol, but if you want to talk about alcohol, I'd start by observing that alcohol is nowhere remotely as addictive as nicotine. The vast majority of people who drink are not addicted.
It's just that you concluded by saying "We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug". That seems to be a general statement about addictive drugs.
Did you mean to say "We increase liberty by banning drugs that are sufficiently addictive"? The trouble is that that would involve a balance between different kinds of liberty, and it wouldn't be possible to justify the ban on the simplistic level that many people are arguing on.
I referred to nicotine as "astonishingly addictive", because it is. My apologies if I didn't reiterate sufficiently clearly in my closing sentence that my comments were in the context of nicotine's extreme addictiveness and were not intended to simplistically generalise to drugs of far lower addictiveness.
Obviously, we have to balance between different kinds of liberty. That's why politics is complicated.
Mr. Jessop, I wonder if Georgia might be next on Putin's list. He's already invaded it at least once (and I think it's twice, though one time was during Medvedev's 'leadership', if I remember correctly).
The current political leadership of Georgia are trying to crack down on internal dissent - there were protests yesterday on Tbilisi over this - which might be as a prelude to moving down the Belarus route of choosing to be a satrapy of Russia to avoid being conquered by Russia.
This is the sort of choice that becomes more likely when countries lose confidence in democracies to protect them from an imperialist dictatorship that they have as a neighbour.
The crisis has been coming for several weeks now. And it’s here. We must do all we can do. Now.
The sad truth is the US, and much of Europe, has just got bored of Ukraine.
Putin knows this. And he will exploit it.
Just look at this place. Our Ukraine ultras barely mention them now. Twelve months ago they were stating what the terms were for,the end of the conflict.
No one can sustain the level of focus on a particular topic endlessly. Commentators and even governments dropping interest in Ukraine was inevitable. What wasn't inevitable was undermining Ukraine by dropping support, but that is what has happened.
Absent a miracle this is the year they get forced to the bargaining table, and at that point Putin already wins. Then the West will wring its hands and say 'Shucks, that's bad but we have to accept the status quo'.
And then Putin will do it again. That's what the appeasers (including some on here) miss - or pretend to miss. Putin has made his aims very clear, and it isn't just Ukraine. It's also in line with his current and previous actions.
The question for the appeasers id this: where is your red line? How much of other people's territory - and how many actual other people - are you willing to gift to a fascist empire?
As long as Putin doesn't stop the daytime repeats of Bargain Hunt, why should they give a toss?
China will have noted the West's weakness and lack of resolve. Do people not realise that this failure will have consequences?
Arriving at work now, but a final thought on the smoking/vaping legislation - it is a combination of unnecessarily strict and completely ineffective:
- It focusses solely on the sale of tobacco in the UK. So it is as strict on vaping as it is cigarettes. - It does not make smoking illegal for anyone, so no one can stop a young person smoking or allow the police to question where they got them from. It's perfectly legal for them to buy cigarettes or vapes abroad and bring them into the UK, or be gifted them from someone older. - The above fact means it will simply encourage the small-time black market and reduce taxation from tobacco.
So even if you support its goals it's a pretty crap piece of legislation.
I do support its goals and would like to see smoking disappear altogether. But I genuinely don't quite understand how shopkeepers are supposed to police it as the age limit rises into the 20s and 30s. Will a 33-year-old be required to prove he's not a 32-year-old? I suppose it's possible that we'll all need to carry proof of age in due course and we'd get used to it as teenagers do now.
The BBC report seems quite sympathetic.
I think Nudge can have value, as can softer edged enforcement. I think the concern about "what about telling the difference between an X year old and an X+1 year old" may be overdone in practice. It gives a time to adapt, as when stopping smoking is not easy to go from Zero to Hero in one jump.
I think a softer edged change - as a nudge which gradually goes into stronger enforcement over a period of years - may be one way of gradually ramping the reform in.
A 33 year old is tricky to tell from a 32 year old, but the practice in many shops for alcohol is to challenge "those who our staff think may be under 25" rather than trying to tell (say) a 17 year old from an 18 year old. There's no reason why the same approach cannot be used here - and before long it will be "no one under 30 can purchase tobacco", when teens will be clearly identifiable.
Do I think it will work? Not sure, and I'd like to hear of any alternative proposals.
@Ratters first point seems strange - how does regulation of sale of tobacco affect vaping, which aiui only carries the nicotine across, not the tobacco?
OK so the cut-off for buying fags is 32 and under your scheme shops will "think 40" but how do we prove we are over 40 (and over 32) without carrying ID cards?
You carry some sort of proof of age. Various proof of age schemes currently exist for a variety of purposes.
I was stopped from buying alcohol in a supermarket when I was in my forties (until my then girlfriend laughed at the cashier!). We live in a society with some age checks. It's not going to be complicated to extend that.
It will not be complicated, you are right, but it might be controversial to require ever larger sections of the population to carry de facto ID cards. Given there are many advocates of ID cards in London SW1, softening us up might be the point.
It won't be ever larger sections of the population. Younger people will never be allowed to buy cigarettes, so we're removing one reason for them to ever carry proof of age. The whole point of the exercise, and many other measures, is to reduce smoking, so the number of people who will need proof of age is small and should be getting smaller. This is nothing like on the scale of the recent voting reforms.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
Putin's biggest allies are those on the right, especially the American right, who see Putin as a fellow hard man keeping the Muslims in check. They don't really care much about Ukraine. In addition, their unconditional support of the Israeli devastation of Gaza is alienating the US to swathes of countries across the world and scuppering any chances of proper sanctions against Russia.
Umm Biden is still US president - though maybe you mean he is on the right?
Putin has called himself a defender of Islam, and has condemned the decadent West for allowing people to insult the prophet Mohammed...
Congress holds the purse-strings and Biden cannot send more weapons to Ukraine without budgetary approval from Congress. The GOP-controlled House is blocking that approval.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
I don't want Putin to win. The problem with the Ukraine Ultras here is the Donald Rumsfeld/Dubya mindset. You are either with them 100% or against them.
Amazon categories are always good fun. "Philisopher Biographies".
'Lessons from the only Conservative in the room'? Who's that then? And why is Truss the person passing those lessons on?
Liz Truss was "the only Conservative in the room" at overseas summits where America, Canada, France and Germany were all ruled by lefties. She has said as much.
Sometimes I feel I might be the only PBer stupid enough to have wasted the last couple of days watching Liz Truss interviews. And you call yourself politics nerds!
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
Putin's biggest allies are those on the right, especially the American right, who see Putin as a fellow hard man keeping the Muslims in check. They don't really care much about Ukraine. In addition, their unconditional support of the Israeli devastation of Gaza is alienating the US to swathes of countries across the world and scuppering any chances of proper sanctions against Russia.
He has many allies on the left as well. As examples, those who show righteous anger at Israel's actions in Gaza, yet never mention Russia's actions in Ukraine, even before October 7th. Though their reasons for being allies with Putin might be very different to those of the right.
Interestingly uk inflation fell less than exoected this month. With the crb commodity price index hitting multi year highs this is not surprising. But now only 1 rate cut is pencilled in this year which means those resetting 2 and 5 year fixed mortgages will continue ti cause tremendous pain. This doesnt help the govt.
It helps savers though.
Pay rises and high savings rates mean a lot of people are doing very well currently.
Yes but those are generally boomers with paid off properties. This just exagerrates inter generational tensions.
To an extent although teenagers will be gainers as well.
But what it does generally is transfer wealth from those with higher borrowing tendencies to those with higher savings tendencies across every age group.
We had more than a decade of ZIRP where the opposite happened without it seems bringing long term benefits to the country and as RCS often tells us a high savings rate is a good thing.
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
Social media is also astonishingly addictive. Maybe it also needs to be banned.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Ceasefire on current lines isn't happening because Putin has no interest in it.
There's a persistent misunderstanding of Putin, his motivations and intentions.
It wont hapoen because sadly russia is winning and the ukrainians are now refusing to fight.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
That was prior to the summer offensive. It wasn’t the breakthrough that was hoped for. So it’s futile to talk about Russian defeat at the moment. Similarly Ukraine is on the back foot but that doesn’t mean collapse is imminent or inevitable.
I’m not a “Ukrainian Ultra”. But geopolitics is my thing and Russia is a tier 2 strategic threat that needs to be dealt with urgently.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
I don't want Putin to win. The problem with the Ukraine Ultras here is the Donald Rumsfeld/Dubya mindset. You are either with them 100% or against them.
Your problem is that it is easy to state: "I don't want Putin to win".
What you don't say is how you go about ensuring he doesn't 'win' (whatever 'win' means...)
Amazon categories are always good fun. "Philisopher Biographies".
'Lessons from the only Conservative in the room'? Who's that then? And why is Truss the person passing those lessons on?
Liz Truss was "the only Conservative in the room" at overseas summits where America, Canada, France and Germany were all ruled by lefties. She has said as much.
Sometimes I feel I might be the only PBer stupid enough to have wasted the last couple of days watching Liz Truss interviews. And you call yourself politics nerds!
Good morning
I can honestly say I have no interest in anything Truss says or does but do I worry for her mental health and utter lack of self awareness
I’d be open to a tobacco ban as part of a wide-ranging review of all drugs laws, that are evidence-based and toxicity and risk to others.
When Professor David Nutt did exactly this for the government, and found that mushrooms and ecstasy should be legalised as they were such low harm, he was hounded out.
Focusing on just one drug is nonsensical.
Government, as Truss never learnt, is the art of the possible. There is nothing nonsensical about focusing on tobacco/nicotine products in one bill.
Er, it’s perfectly possible to have a proper review of recreational drugs laws (few if any of which are currently enforced or indeed enforceable). It just takes political will. Why was Professor David Nutt hounded out when he gave the government some truths that didn’t align with the outdated views of @AndyJs and Middle England?
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
Putin's biggest allies are those on the right, especially the American right, who see Putin as a fellow hard man keeping the Muslims in check. They don't really care much about Ukraine. In addition, their unconditional support of the Israeli devastation of Gaza is alienating the US to swathes of countries across the world and scuppering any chances of proper sanctions against Russia.
Umm Biden is still US president - though maybe you mean he is on the right?
Putin has called himself a defender of Islam, and has condemned the decadent West for allowing people to insult the prophet Mohammed...
Congress holds the purse-strings and Biden cannot send more weapons to Ukraine without budgetary approval from Congress. The GOP-controlled House is blocking that approval.
What was your point?
From the post I replied to:
"In addition, their unconditional support of the Israeli devastation of Gaza is alienating the US to swathes of countries across the world and scuppering any chances of proper sanctions against Russia."
Amazon categories are always good fun. "Philisopher Biographies".
'Lessons from the only Conservative in the room'? Who's that then? And why is Truss the person passing those lessons on?
Liz Truss was "the only Conservative in the room" at overseas summits where America, Canada, France and Germany were all ruled by lefties. She has said as much.
Sometimes I feel I might be the only PBer stupid enough to have wasted the last couple of days watching Liz Truss interviews. And you call yourself politics nerds!
Good morning
I can honestly say I have no interest in anything Truss says or does but do I worry for her mental health and utter lack of self awareness
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
Putin's biggest allies are those on the right, especially the American right, who see Putin as a fellow hard man keeping the Muslims in check. They don't really care much about Ukraine. In addition, their unconditional support of the Israeli devastation of Gaza is alienating the US to swathes of countries across the world and scuppering any chances of proper sanctions against Russia.
Umm Biden is still US president - though maybe you mean he is on the right?
Putin has called himself a defender of Islam, and has condemned the decadent West for allowing people to insult the prophet Mohammed...
VVP is always very solicitous of Muslim sentiment inside the RF - he's got to be as Russia is 10% Muslim and that fraction is rising quickly due to demographics. I've missed the start of a CSKA - Dinamo hockey game because his goons were blocking Olimpiskiy Prospect while he visited the Tatar Mosque.
I’d be open to a tobacco ban as part of a wide-ranging review of all drugs laws, that are evidence-based and toxicity and risk to others.
When Professor David Nutt did exactly this for the government, and found that mushrooms and ecstasy should be legalised as they were such low harm, he was hounded out.
Focusing on just one drug is nonsensical.
Government, as Truss never learnt, is the art of the possible. There is nothing nonsensical about focusing on tobacco/nicotine products in one bill.
Er, it’s perfectly possible to have a proper review of recreational drugs laws (few if any of which are currently enforced or indeed enforceable). It just takes political will. Why was Professor David Nutt hounded out when he gave the government some truths that didn’t align with the outdated views of @AndyJs and Middle England?
I'm not saying it's impossible to have a proper review of recreational drugs laws, but it's going to be much harder to get a comprehensive bill covering all drug laws through Parliament than it is to get through this Bill. (This Bill only passed its latest division because of Opposition support.)
The treatment of Nutt that you keep mentioning only illustrates how difficult a more comprehensive drug law would be.
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
Social media is also astonishingly addictive. Maybe it also needs to be banned.
Why are ecstasy and mushrooms banned? There could be huge social and economic benefits to regulating them.
The crisis has been coming for several weeks now. And it’s here. We must do all we can do. Now.
The sad truth is the US, and much of Europe, has just got bored of Ukraine.
Putin knows this. And he will exploit it.
Just look at this place. Our Ukraine ultras barely mention them now. Twelve months ago they were stating what the terms were for,the end of the conflict.
No one can sustain the level of focus on a particular topic endlessly. Commentators and even governments dropping interest in Ukraine was inevitable. What wasn't inevitable was undermining Ukraine by dropping support, but that is what has happened.
Absent a miracle this is the year they get forced to the bargaining table, and at that point Putin already wins. Then the West will wring its hands and say 'Shucks, that's bad but we have to accept the status quo'.
And then Putin will do it again. That's what the appeasers (including some on here) miss - or pretend to miss. Putin has made his aims very clear, and it isn't just Ukraine. It's also in line with his current and previous actions.
The question for the appeasers id this: where is your red line? How much of other people's territory - and how many actual other people - are you willing to gift to a fascist empire?
As long as Putin doesn't stop the daytime repeats of Bargain Hunt, why should they give a toss?
China will have noted the West's weakness and lack of resolve. Do people not realise that this failure will have consequences?
But they get to OWN THE LIBS!!! Or something
When the "enemy within" is regarded as a bigger threat than the "enemy without" then a country has terminal problems. It's the sort of thinking that would welcome foreign occupation as an opportunity to finally defeat the internal opposition.
Seen through that prism you can understand why Truss supports Trump. She regards institutions such as the Bank of England as part of the problem, rather than being institutions with such extraordinary longevity that they contribute to Britain's strength. But she has identified them as an enemy within, so she would rather liquidate them than to work with them.
I would prefer for tobacco to be banned completely rather than have this silly situation where a 31 year old will be able to buy it but a 30 year old won't be able to.
Mr. Password, be fair. If Truss didn't blame the Bank of England she'd have to blame someone else. Or, just possibly, acknowledge her own approach (not even considering the impact of her proposed changes, which was just bizarre) was the problem.
It's always easier and more appealing to point at an individual, group, or institution and blame them for one's failings.
Transactional testing of the Horizon system was rejected on cost grounds.
I cannot comprehend how you would create any piece of software and not have numerous levels of testing as an integral part of that process. Given the mess that has ensued, talk about a false economy.
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
Social media is also astonishingly addictive. Maybe it also needs to be banned.
It would be good to have ways to ensure that the providers of certain kinds of goods are obliged to consider the well-being of the users of those goods.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
Putin's biggest allies are those on the right, especially the American right, who see Putin as a fellow hard man keeping the Muslims in check. They don't really care much about Ukraine. In addition, their unconditional support of the Israeli devastation of Gaza is alienating the US to swathes of countries across the world and scuppering any chances of proper sanctions against Russia.
Umm Biden is still US president - though maybe you mean he is on the right?
Putin has called himself a defender of Islam, and has condemned the decadent West for allowing people to insult the prophet Mohammed...
VVP is always very solicitous of Muslim sentiment inside the RF - he's got to be as Russia is 10% Muslim and that fraction is rising quickly due to demographics. I've missed the start of a CSKA - Dinamo hockey game because his goons were blocking Olimpiskiy Prospect while he visited the Tatar Mosque.
That does not seem to operate on the ethnic groups he chooses to turn into cannon fodder.
I’d be open to a tobacco ban as part of a wide-ranging review of all drugs laws, that are evidence-based and toxicity and risk to others.
When Professor David Nutt did exactly this for the government, and found that mushrooms and ecstasy should be legalised as they were such low harm, he was hounded out.
Focusing on just one drug is nonsensical.
Government, as Truss never learnt, is the art of the possible. There is nothing nonsensical about focusing on tobacco/nicotine products in one bill.
Er, it’s perfectly possible to have a proper review of recreational drugs laws (few if any of which are currently enforced or indeed enforceable). It just takes political will. Why was Professor David Nutt hounded out when he gave the government some truths that didn’t align with the outdated views of @AndyJs and Middle England?
I'm not saying it's impossible to have a proper review of recreational drugs laws, but it's going to be much harder to get a comprehensive bill covering all drug laws through Parliament than it is to get through this Bill. (This Bill only passed its latest division because of Opposition support.)
The treatment of Nutt that you keep mentioning only illustrates how difficult a more comprehensive drug law would be.
If the US (ie the Republicans) remember their duty then Ukraine will win. If not then Russia will grind them into submission.
Why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine the "duty" of the US tax payer?
Anybody depending on the enduring commitment of the US to the cause was always heading for disappointment.
Now now, you'll be being accused of being a Putinist again.
Didn't you jut refer to Ukrainian 'Ultras' on the previous thread?
I did, we used to have a few here. Indeed some were outlining the exact terms for this conflict to end and nothing else would be acceptable. We do not have them here anymore. They seem to have found something else to spend time on.
There are only two ways this ends. Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
I think it is in our interest to support Ukraine for a myriad of reasons however I can only see a ceasefire on current lines as the best option here.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
So basically you are now a Putinist troll. We see you.
The problem is there are lots of people who seem to want Putin to win, and for Russia to gain more power at the expense of liberalism, democracy and freedom. These people are often indistinguishable from people who screech 'peace!' whilst sharing pro-Russian propaganda, or those who want peace at any price.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
Putin's biggest allies are those on the right, especially the American right, who see Putin as a fellow hard man keeping the Muslims in check. They don't really care much about Ukraine. In addition, their unconditional support of the Israeli devastation of Gaza is alienating the US to swathes of countries across the world and scuppering any chances of proper sanctions against Russia.
Umm Biden is still US president - though maybe you mean he is on the right?
Putin has called himself a defender of Islam, and has condemned the decadent West for allowing people to insult the prophet Mohammed...
VVP is always very solicitous of Muslim sentiment inside the RF - he's got to be as Russia is 10% Muslim and that fraction is rising quickly due to demographics. I've missed the start of a CSKA - Dinamo hockey game because his goons were blocking Olimpiskiy Prospect while he visited the Tatar Mosque.
That does not seem to operate on the ethnic groups he chooses to turn into cannon fodder.
In Putin World, you can be solicitous of someone while you are slowly feeding them through a meat grinder.
I am a liberal. I think people should be free. Sunak's smoking proposals are a restriction on people's freedoms to buy cigarettes. So, why support them?
Most people who smoke want to give up. That's because nicotine is astonishingly addictive. Most people smoking are doing something they would rather not be doing, because they are compelled by their addiction. That is a restriction on people's freedoms. We increase liberty by banning an addictive drug.
Social media is also astonishingly addictive. Maybe it also needs to be banned.
Why are ecstasy and mushrooms banned? There could be huge social and economic benefits to regulating them.
I think there's a moralistic side to lots of drugs law, as though there's something about taking a drug to feel good that is in some way cheating or immoral, even if a hypothetical drug has zero side-effects. Blame Christianity - anything enjoyable is a sin.
Otherwise you would have expected pharmaceutical companies to be all over a search for a drug that would induce temporary euphoria with minimal side effects. But they know that there would be no way for them to get stuck a drug licenced for general sale.
Comments
There is also a great pretence that it is linked to the particular ownership of a company, which is a creation of those looking for stones to throw at privatisation - incorporating the fiction of improved performance by non-profit or publicly owned water companies.
I suggest that the data in the header - identified by the Times as "Source: Environmental Agency via Liberal Democrats" - qualifies as politics-based evidence by the Lib Dems in support of their policy.
IMO there's a very good reason they have not supplied data for Wales and Scotland; it would hole their claims beneath the waterline.
But it's not inevitable.
IIRC all (for some absurdly high value of percentage) drink driving is now people who are way, way over the limit. The half bottle of Scotch and some beers types.
The lower(ed) Scottish limit had no effect on accidents, IIRC.
Either Russia is forced to abandon its effort to defeat Ukraine, or Ukraine is defeated.
The 'terms' which accompany the first option won't be decided unless it happens. As for the second, we will have no say in them anyway.
"ultra processed food" is the perfect grifter slogan:
- There's a grain of truth in it. Chemically designing food gives the opportunity to reduce costs by making it less healthy, and food producers should be held to account. We need better ways to quantify and assure the health value of food products. However-
- The term "UPF" is vague, making it not useful for the individual. This provides great opportunities for grifters to a) publish scary clickbait and b) set themselves up as an authority on what food or is not UPF.
- It provides the perfect opportunity for status signalling, as wealthier people can invest money or time in artisanally produced or prepared food.And for status seekers to witter on about the best way to avoid it in an evidence free way.
- It provides an opportunity for low efficiency producers to sell food as "less processed" at a high markup, irrespective of whether it is more healthy
The population is too large to rely on food produced or prepared artisanally, unless possibly they prepare it themselves out of raw ingredients. But giving up on economic specialism in the area of food preparation would be huge cost on society. Do we really believe that our economic system is incapable of enforcing the evaluation and optimization of the health value of food products, to the extent that we can never trust anything except raw ingredients? That would be a really basic failure.Part of the problem is that the "peace now!" appeasers don't argue their position. They say we should give Putin what he wants for 'peace', yet brave-Sir-Robin when it is pointed out that will lead to more war. I take it that is because they realise their position is morally bankrupt.
An important point about smoking is that it is not just a choice for you: if you smoke, you potentially affect the people around you, who might have made a free choice not to breathe in sickly smoke. So it is not just your freedom, but of those around you.
There are considerate smokers, but also very many inconsiderate ones. Is a ban a way of stopping the latter? i doubt it.
I explained earlier why I narrowly oppose this, but I do think it will work in practice. Initially it will effect only those who are routinely asked for ID anyway. Once todays 18 year olds are 25, they're probably - if non smokers - less likely to try to start anyway, but in theory they will also be getting asked for ID - the challenge 25 policy for cigarettes will increase by one year each year. But even if there is some error around the edges, the fact is that in 10 years time anyone who looks under 28 (or probably 35) is going to get asked for ID. In 20 years anyone who doesn't look middle aged. The falling market is likely to lead to fewer stockists, too. Realistically, being a smoker in 20-30 years time under these rules will be an epic pain in the arse in terms of availability and hassle.
I was stopped from buying alcohol in a supermarket when I was in my forties (until my then girlfriend laughed at the cashier!). We live in a society with some age checks. It's not going to be complicated to extend that.
Amazon categories are always good fun. "Philisopher Biographies".
When Professor David Nutt did exactly this for the government, and found that mushrooms and ecstasy should be legalised as they were such low harm, he was hounded out.
Focusing on just one drug is nonsensical.
Did you mean to say "We increase liberty by banning drugs that are sufficiently addictive"? The trouble is that that would involve a balance between different kinds of liberty, and it wouldn't be possible to justify the ban on the simplistic level that many people are arguing on.
I will be honest. I don't even know who you are and cannot recall seeing anything you have posted.
I support Ukraine, of course, however people who are rational on it but not flag waving Ultras get labelled Putinists for no good reason. I was, once, for not wanting British troops in Ukraine. It is a purity test from the GWB/Rumsfeld tendency on the matter.
Enjoy your day and back to anonymity.
We need to keep supporting Ukraine. However I suspect the desire to do this in the west is declining, especially with Israel pre-occupying peoples thoughts.
Pay rises and high savings rates mean a lot of people are doing very well currently.
Oh, and it was clearly autocorrect, anyway
It might require delaying a tax cut for a year or two to fund increased weapons manufacture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56RrmlmJFH8
"Fiona Parker
@fiona_parker14
Former PO investigator Jon Longman - who was involved in the wrongful conviction of Seema Misra - will give evidence today. Ms Misra told The Telegraph she was “disappointed” he would be appearing remotely. She had wanted to “look him in the eyes”."
https://twitter.com/fiona_parker14/status/1780515737532068114
Where are your red lines? Who are you willing to hand over to a fascist empire?
In theory I'm against it, as was I in theory against lowering the stakes on FOBTs but there is no doubt that both smoking and high stakes FOBTs cause immense harm.
There's a persistent misunderstanding of Putin, his motivations and intentions.
The line between them can be so thin as to be nonexistent.
Inside the disinformation industry - how a “ratings agency” called the Global Disinformation Index determines that ad revenues be withheld from @unherd for .. er… publishing me.
The reason seems obvious: Putin's long-term strategic aims are not small and limited. They are for a return of something akin to the USSR. Ukraine was always meant to be just the start.
So there is the moral issue of whether we should allow that, and subject millions of people to the consequences of Russian fascism. And if we do, how long before the resulting new cold war turns hot.
The best time to stop Putin is now. The better time was in 2016. Or 2014. Or 2008. The worse times are in the future.
https://x.com/thesiriusreport/status/1780488844074160527
Here is a set of (imo too short term) proposals from the Association of British Insurers:
https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/choosing-the-right-insurance/motor-insurance/graduated-driver-licencing/
And here is a piece from the RAC Foundation citing evidence of casualty reductions of 20-40% amongst young drivers,
https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/study-confirms-benefits-of-graduated-driver-licensing
At the moment Transport Ministers think that trying to improve Road Safety is somehow "anti-driver", which imo is just another delusional political lie they are telling themselves; it will vanish into the dustbin of history with this Government.
Putin has called himself a defender of Islam, and has condemned the decadent West for allowing people to insult the prophet Mohammed...
Hokey-dokey.
https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024?tid=1713346345980
Obviously, we have to balance between different kinds of liberty. That's why politics is complicated.
This is the sort of choice that becomes more likely when countries lose confidence in democracies to protect them from an imperialist dictatorship that they have as a neighbour.
What was your point?
1) Win for Putin
2) Draw
3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
Transactional testing of the Horizon system was rejected on cost grounds.
But what it does generally is transfer wealth from those with higher borrowing tendencies to those with higher savings tendencies across every age group.
We had more than a decade of ZIRP where the opposite happened without it seems bringing long term benefits to the country and as RCS often tells us a high savings rate is a good thing.
Talks up Russia against Ukraine? Check.
Agrees with Leon? Check.
Yep, looks like a troll.
I’m not a “Ukrainian Ultra”. But geopolitics is my thing and Russia is a tier 2 strategic threat that needs to be dealt with urgently.
What you don't say is how you go about ensuring he doesn't 'win' (whatever 'win' means...)
I can honestly say I have no interest in anything Truss says or does but do I worry for her mental health and utter lack of self awareness
"In addition, their unconditional support of the Israeli devastation of Gaza is alienating the US to swathes of countries across the world and scuppering any chances of proper sanctions against Russia."
The treatment of Nutt that you keep mentioning only illustrates how difficult a more comprehensive drug law would be.
Seen through that prism you can understand why Truss supports Trump. She regards institutions such as the Bank of England as part of the problem, rather than being institutions with such extraordinary longevity that they contribute to Britain's strength. But she has identified them as an enemy within, so she would rather liquidate them than to work with them.
She is a right-wing anti-conservative.
It's always easier and more appealing to point at an individual, group, or institution and blame them for one's failings.
Otherwise you would have expected pharmaceutical companies to be all over a search for a drug that would induce temporary euphoria with minimal side effects. But they know that there would be no way for them to get stuck a drug licenced for general sale.