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.
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...)
Putin was always going to "win" imo
Despite that the Ukraine ultras on here were predicting defeat and financial collapse within days
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...)
Encouraging and equipping Israel to flatten Gaza and starve its inhabitants isn't exactly helping the West to win support around the world for its actions elsewhere. Putin isn't going to be defeated militarily; Russia's weakness is its economy. And the only way you can hit that hard is with the cooperation of the rest of the world.
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...)
Putin was always going to "win" imo
Despite that the Ukraine ultras on here were predicting defeat and financial collapse within days
It is not inevitable that the West will fail to provide the weapons necessary for Russia to be defeated. It is a choice.
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.
This is very confusing for @Leon, who things that Putin is the world's greatest authority on 'woke', but is also in favour of tossers burning the Koran in front of mosques as often as possible. Try that in Russia Comrade Leonski!
Amazon categories are always good fun. "Philisopher Biographies".
The first person to post on this board a copy of Truss's tome on sale with a discount of 50 per cent or more, wins a packet of fags from me (or a Truss-style bondage necklace, if you prefer)
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.
I don't totally buy the idea that if Putin wins in Ukraine it will be step one in the greater (re)conquest of Eastern Europe. I'm very pro-Ukraine but it's not primarily for that reason. For me this is about not allowing the unprovoked mass slaughter of innocent people to pay dividends for the guilty party. That's a deeply wrong and damaging outcome, regardless of its down-the-line consequences (which are impossible to forecast with any confidence anyway).
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.
OK, but I really wonder whether there is the great gulf between the addictiveness of nicotine and alcohol that you are implying.
According to David Nutt's quantitative estimates, published in 2007 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4), in Table 3 in the "dependence" category, he puts tobacco at 2.3 for pleasure, 2.6 for psychological dependence and 1.8 for physical dependence, for a mean of 2.21 (should be 2.23?) and alcohol at 2.3 for pleasure, 1.9 for psychological dependence and 1.6 for physical dependence, for a mean of 1.93.
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.
Yes but @rcs1000 might be wrong to fetishise household savings ratios. Savings mean banks get money (many multiples of your savings thanks to fractional reserve banking) to invest in industry which creates jobs, boosts exports and all that other fine stuff but what actually happens is banks use your savings in a sort of giant casino making ever higher profits for a few bankers until one day they bet on red and it comes up black and your taxes are spent bailing them out.
The alternative to high consumer savings is consumer spending which creates jobs and all that good stuff that banking was supposed to be when rcs's text books were written. But again, this is not what happens, or it is but not here. Consumers are prone to spend money on imports which create jobs abroad, or tourism which creates jobs abroad. Now, to a very limited extent this can be offset by newly-enriched foreigners spending money to create jobs here but Brexit makes it harder and it was pretty limited before.
So basically rcs is wrong and we are all screwed apart from the rich who will get richer thanks to asset price inflation so my advice to any children out there is to choose your parents carefully.
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.
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.
All very positive, but how would you deal with self-ID?
In practice, I think it would have to be age - or time since licence obtained - based, given what - if IRRC - we saw with insurance. In fact, time since licence gained might be more defensible* and would also put restrictions on those who lost licences for various reasons (might be better in some cases to have a shorter ban and then graduated return rather than current ban and then back to doing whatever you like).
*it's partly age, but also partly experience - I got my licence at age 17, but drove very little until I bought a car after uni aged 21. I was a pretty crap driver for a while until I got more experience, probably worse than when I'd just passed my test. Of course, time since licence or age both probably wouldn't help with my case.
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.
Yes
When Boeing suffered a major failure during the first test flight of their Strainer capsule, it turned out that they didn't simulate and test the full software stack for a full mission. Because they said it was too hard.
NASA did an investigation - which they were told to turn into an investigation of both vendors. In the hope, by Boeing supporters in Congress, to make it "We are just as bad as them"
It turned out that that the SpaceX methodology was that
1) All code changes trigger a build-test cycle. 2) All code changes trigger unit, functional, integration, stability, performance and about 50 other types of testing. 3) All code changes then go into a build which is tested further. Then run on a test spacecraft for a full mission.
So change a word in a comment and it will end up in a full, all up test before it flies.
To everyone in software development this is just sensible. I've worked in places that did this for far less critical systems than manned space flight.
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.
There is a drug that induces temporary euphoria with minimal side effects, and it's widely available for sale. Catnip! (OK, only works on (some) cats.)
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.
Under the new system however whilst that 31 year old will be able to buy tobacco the 30 year old, the 28 year old, the 25 year old, the 18 year old and all their friends won’t legally be able to so very few will - sure a few might to be rebellious but as more and more don’t smoke then it’s going to be less acceptable for the odd one who does - even in my 40s I was one of the last few of my social group to smoke and I noticed it being less fun and less accepted nipping off outside for a fag on my own on a night out or at dinner with friends and I realise now how truly grim the smell of smoke was to non smokers.
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.
OK, but I really wonder whether there is the great gulf between the addictiveness of nicotine and alcohol that you are implying.
According to David Nutt's quantitative estimates, published in 2007 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4), in Table 3 in the "dependence" category, he puts tobacco at 2.3 for pleasure, 2.6 for psychological dependence and 1.8 for physical dependence, for a mean of 2.21 (should be 2.23?) and alcohol at 2.3 for pleasure, 1.9 for psychological dependence and 1.6 for physical dependence, for a mean of 1.93.
If you wish to push for greater restrictions on alcohol, go for it. That's your decision.
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.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Yes. To ban it completely invites an illegal trade. The bill (which I am very unsure about) allows decades to pass during which it assumes consumption will decline rapidly but there will still be a legal trade easy enough to access if you are really keen that an illegal trade won't.
BTW the though that small shops in inner cities are going to decline to sell fags to 43 year olds but will to 44 year olds is delusional. Nor is it enforceable.
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.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Yes. To ban it completely invites an illegal trade. The bill (which I am very unsure about) allows decades to pass during which it assumes consumption will decline rapidly but there will still be a legal trade easy enough to access if you are really keen that an illegal trade won't.
BTW the though that small shops in inner cities are going to decline to sell fags to 43 year olds but will to 44 year olds is delusional. Nor is it enforceable.
There's money in the Bill for more trading standards enforcement (although not enough to make up for the huge cuts in trading standards enforcement under the Conservative government).
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.
OK, but I really wonder whether there is the great gulf between the addictiveness of nicotine and alcohol that you are implying.
According to David Nutt's quantitative estimates, published in 2007 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4), in Table 3 in the "dependence" category, he puts tobacco at 2.3 for pleasure, 2.6 for psychological dependence and 1.8 for physical dependence, for a mean of 2.21 (should be 2.23?) and alcohol at 2.3 for pleasure, 1.9 for psychological dependence and 1.6 for physical dependence, for a mean of 1.93.
If you wish to push for greater restrictions on alcohol, go for it. That's your decision.
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.
OK, but I really wonder whether there is the great gulf between the addictiveness of nicotine and alcohol that you are implying.
According to David Nutt's quantitative estimates, published in 2007 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4), in Table 3 in the "dependence" category, he puts tobacco at 2.3 for pleasure, 2.6 for psychological dependence and 1.8 for physical dependence, for a mean of 2.21 (should be 2.23?) and alcohol at 2.3 for pleasure, 1.9 for psychological dependence and 1.6 for physical dependence, for a mean of 1.93.
If you wish to push for greater restrictions on alcohol, go for it. That's your decision.
It being written down doesn't make it a fact. Are they including student debt for example? Adjusting for house price inflation as opposed to RPI? Taking account that Gen Z are starting families later because they can't afford this in their twenties - sure it makes their bank accounts a bit higher in their twenties as they are saving to do things like house purchases and have families that previous generations could do more easily but is that in any way healthy or beneficial?
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.
Putin joined the KGB in 1975. IIRC that would make him from the generation that (as a part of their training) was shown a film of a KGB traitor being thrown into a blast furnace.
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.
OK, but I really wonder whether there is the great gulf between the addictiveness of nicotine and alcohol that you are implying.
According to David Nutt's quantitative estimates, published in 2007 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4), in Table 3 in the "dependence" category, he puts tobacco at 2.3 for pleasure, 2.6 for psychological dependence and 1.8 for physical dependence, for a mean of 2.21 (should be 2.23?) and alcohol at 2.3 for pleasure, 1.9 for psychological dependence and 1.6 for physical dependence, for a mean of 1.93.
If you wish to push for greater restrictions on alcohol, go for it. That's your decision.
Now you're being silly. OK.
I was talking about nicotine. You keep wanting to talk about alcohol. I believe in free speech: if you want to talk about alcohol, talk about alcohol. But, equally, I don't have to play your game of whataboutery.
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.
Putin joined the KGB in 1975. IIRC that would make him from the generation that (as a part of their training) was shown a film of a KGB traitor being thrown into a blast furnace.
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
Oh, and it was clearly autocorrect, anyway
The number of times autocorrect has tried to change my hamfisted typing to the c**t word is quite alarming. Possibly challenging my inner Freud. I've tried removing that word from my input system dictionary but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
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.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Yes. To ban it completely invites an illegal trade. The bill (which I am very unsure about) allows decades to pass during which it assumes consumption will decline rapidly but there will still be a legal trade easy enough to access if you are really keen that an illegal trade won't.
BTW the though that small shops in inner cities are going to decline to sell fags to 43 year olds but will to 44 year olds is delusional. Nor is it enforceable.
It could end up being sold only through pharmacies if they were fussed about enforcement at some point in the future. But realistically they will care more about prevelance rather than strict enforcement.
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.
Yes but @rcs1000 might be wrong to fetishise household savings ratios. Savings mean banks get money (many multiples of your savings thanks to fractional reserve banking) to invest in industry which creates jobs, boosts exports and all that other fine stuff but what actually happens is banks use your savings in a sort of giant casino making ever higher profits for a few bankers until one day they bet on red and it comes up black and your taxes are spent bailing them out.
The alternative to high consumer savings is consumer spending which creates jobs and all that good stuff that banking was supposed to be when rcs's text books were written. But again, this is not what happens, or it is but not here. Consumers are prone to spend money on imports which create jobs abroad, or tourism which creates jobs abroad. Now, to a very limited extent this can be offset by newly-enriched foreigners spending money to create jobs here but Brexit makes it harder and it was pretty limited before.
So basically rcs is wrong and we are all screwed apart from the rich who will get richer thanks to asset price inflation so my advice to any children out there is to choose your parents carefully.
Which is why the Vickers Report was so important - one of the few things I would credit Osborne for implementing
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.
Putin joined the KGB in 1975. IIRC that would make him from the generation that (as a part of their training) was shown a film of a KGB traitor being thrown into a blast furnace.
That story is an urban legend, I believe.
I was musing on it
I don’t think you’d use a real KGB traitor. Potentially embarrassing and reminds the institution of their failure.
So you grab someone off the street
“But I’ve done nothing!” “That’s what they all say…” “Aaaaargh!”
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.
As a liberal, I support this.
As an annoying git, I think we should couple the tobacco age-restriction elevator bill with an ecstasy age-permission elevator bill. At or below the (rising) cut-off age it becomes illegal to buy or possess tobacco, but legal to buy and possess ecstasy (from licenced sources). Above the cut-off age the reverse is true. Let's do something for the kids for a change
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.
Fair enough - I don't disagree. I just don't believe the UPF meme will make any difference. We need to know specifically what food content is unhealthy. IMO, a better approach would be to update food labels for the digital age. You should be able to scan your food label with your phone, and get the app of your choice to tell you how healthy it is - either by having the content information in a QR code,or by requiring the manufacturers to upload the data to an open database linked to the existing barcode.
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
Oh, and it was clearly autocorrect, anyway
The number of times autocorrect has tried to change my hamfisted typing to the c**t word is quite alarming. Possibly challenging my inner Freud. I've tried removing that word from my input system dictionary but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
Always good to get your excuses in before the event
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
Oh, and it was clearly autocorrect, anyway
The number of times autocorrect has tried to change my hamfisted typing to the c**t word is quite alarming. Possibly challenging my inner Freud. I've tried removing that word from my input system dictionary but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
Just call him the chancellor from now on rather than risk typing Jeremy #*#*.
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.
Putin joined the KGB in 1975. IIRC that would make him from the generation that (as a part of their training) was shown a film of a KGB traitor being thrown into a blast furnace.
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...)
I have already said here we should keep providing military aid.
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.
THanks. I think you must be right. Please regard my posting as duff gen.
There was definitely a big Pooh sticks competition at the bridge I mentioned - must have misunderstood what I was told when going that way by accident on the day. One thing for sure, they'll have to rethink their event for future repeats ...
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.
Putin joined the KGB in 1975. IIRC that would make him from the generation that (as a part of their training) was shown a film of a KGB traitor being thrown into a blast furnace.
That story is an urban legend, I believe.
Not according to Suvorov in his book Aquarium
Suvorov Said lots of things which turned out to have a certain kind of relationship with reality.
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.
Fair enough - I don't disagree. I just don't believe the UPF meme will make any difference. We need to know specifically what food content is unhealthy. IMO, a better approach would be to update food labels for the digital age. You should be able to scan your food label with your phone, and get the app of your choice to tell you how healthy it is - either by having the content information in a QR code,or by requiring the manufacturers to upload the data to an open database linked to the existing barcode.
Recent research thinking* does seem to suggest that it's not just the content (as traditionally nutritionally measured) that matters but also how processed. More energy extraction/weight gain for example from a more processed food with equivalent calorie content.
The hypothesis being that the processing makes the energy more available as the food is easier to break down, being pre-processed to a greater extent (either making more of the energy recoverable or requiring less energy for the digestion, or both).
*I've skimmed some/pre-prints and articles, but this isn't my field and I don't have them to hand. It may be that this doesn't stand up to scrutiny anyway, but you can see the logic. Going to extremes, there is interest now in possible benefits of blended diets (blended up real food) for gastrostomy-fed children rather than using formula (essentially similar to baby-formula, but formulated for age-appropriate nutrition, previously very much the standard approach) which is ultra-processed - e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.15799
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.
Putin joined the KGB in 1975. IIRC that would make him from the generation that (as a part of their training) was shown a film of a KGB traitor being thrown into a blast furnace.
That story is an urban legend, I believe.
Not according to Suvorov in his book Aquarium
True or not, it was told as reported fact. ..I study the man's face in the hope of finding there signs of madness. It's easier for madmen in this world. But there are no such signs on that handsome manly face. It is not distorted by the imprint of madness. It is simply that he doesn't want to go into the furnace and is trying somehow to make that clear. But what can he do except scream? So he screams. Fortunately that scream is not recorded for posterity. Then his patent-leather shoes go into the fire, and that is that. The fire flares up. Oxygen being pumped in, no doubt. The two attendants at the front jump away to the side, while the two at the end give the stretcher a good push into the depths of the furnace. The furnace doors close and the sound of the projector dies out.
'Who was he?' I don't really know why I ask such a question.
'He was a colonel, a former colonel. He worked in our organization in important posts. But he deceived us..
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.
Putin joined the KGB in 1975. IIRC that would make him from the generation that (as a part of their training) was shown a film of a KGB traitor being thrown into a blast furnace.
That story is an urban legend, I believe.
Not according to Suvorov in his book Aquarium
Suvorov Said lots of things which turned out to have a certain kind of relationship with reality.
Yes, it does read more as a film script than documentary.
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...)
Putin was always going to "win" imo
Despite that the Ukraine ultras on here were predicting defeat and financial collapse within days
Ah, so this "Ukrainian ultras' sh*t is spreading.
Like many leftists, you are much more vocal about Palestine than you are about Ukraine. It's interesting to ponder why that is: especially when combined with your excusing and denial of Corbyn's anti-semitism.
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.
Putin joined the KGB in 1975. IIRC that would make him from the generation that (as a part of their training) was shown a film of a KGB traitor being thrown into a blast furnace.
That story is an urban legend, I believe.
Not according to Suvorov in his book Aquarium
Suvorov Said lots of things which turned out to have a certain kind of relationship with reality.
Yes, it does read more as a film script than documentary.
But not really something you can fact check.
The question is whether it is believable. And sadly, it is. It is also something the KGB et al might actually want to spread, even if it never really happened.
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...)
Putin was always going to "win" imo
Despite that the Ukraine ultras on here were predicting defeat and financial collapse within days
Ah, so this "Ukrainian ultras' sh*t is spreading.
Like many leftists, you are much more vocal about Palestine than you are about Ukraine. It's interesting to ponder why that is: especially when combined with your excusing and denial of Corbyn's anti-semitism.
Well leftists like Corbyn have historical sympathies with russia, israel not so 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.
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...)
Putin was always going to "win" imo
Despite that the Ukraine ultras on here were predicting defeat and financial collapse within days
Ah, so this "Ukrainian ultras' sh*t is spreading.
Like many leftists, you are much more vocal about Palestine than you are about Ukraine. It's interesting to ponder why that is: especially when combined with your excusing and denial of Corbyn's anti-semitism.
Also brown people are dying in palestine so it fits into the oppressor oppressed narrative.
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.
THanks. I think you must be right. Please regard my posting as duff gen.
There was definitely a big Pooh sticks competition at the bridge I mentioned - must have misunderstood what I was told when going that way by accident on the day. One thing for sure, they'll have to rethink their event for future repeats ...
It is apparently where they held the championships:
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.
OK, but I really wonder whether there is the great gulf between the addictiveness of nicotine and alcohol that you are implying.
According to David Nutt's quantitative estimates, published in 2007 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4), in Table 3 in the "dependence" category, he puts tobacco at 2.3 for pleasure, 2.6 for psychological dependence and 1.8 for physical dependence, for a mean of 2.21 (should be 2.23?) and alcohol at 2.3 for pleasure, 1.9 for psychological dependence and 1.6 for physical dependence, for a mean of 1.93.
It looks to me as if the Nutt figures you are quoting is the level of dependency for addicts, which is difference from addictiveness whoich is a measure of how quickly a user slips into being an addict.
With smoking this is a very steep slide, much steeper than for alcohol.
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...)
Putin was always going to "win" imo
Despite that the Ukraine ultras on here were predicting defeat and financial collapse within days
Ah, so this "Ukrainian ultras' sh*t is spreading.
Like many leftists, you are much more vocal about Palestine than you are about Ukraine. It's interesting to ponder why that is: especially when combined with your excusing and denial of Corbyn's anti-semitism.
I preferred Dura Ace's reference to our Chairborne division, as opposed to Ukraine Ultras. But I cannot take credit for that either.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
F24ENG are reporting that the Ukraine funding vote will be held in the US House of Representatives on Friday, with the Senate's funding bill being divided in four bills that will be voted on separately.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Malmesbury, apologies I did not see your post.
Interesting response. Where would you put Crimea in all of this ? Could you see Russia accepting anything less than Crimea being a Russian entity ? I think in terms of Putin anything less than Crimea being a part of Russia is a defeat, even an Unofficial country.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
There's Crimea too of course. Despite the demographics and history which suggest Crimea is rather less Ukrainian than Donbass, it seems to have been much more militarily vulnerable with narrower supply lines.
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.
I don't totally buy the idea that if Putin wins in Ukraine it will be step one in the greater (re)conquest of Eastern Europe. I'm very pro-Ukraine but it's not primarily for that reason. For me this is about not allowing the unprovoked mass slaughter of innocent people to pay dividends for the guilty party. That's a deeply wrong and damaging outcome, regardless of its down-the-line consequences (which are impossible to forecast with any confidence anyway).
You would have enjoyed the play I saw last night. The Dream of a Ridiculous Man.
Very good indeed Greg Hicks was superb.
It ends with the sentiment if only everyone loved each other. Noble indeed if a smadge unrealistic.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Malmesbury, apologies I did not see your post.
Interesting response. Where would you put Crimea in all of this ? Could you see Russia accepting anything less than Crimea being a Russian entity ? I think in terms of Putin anything less than Crimea being a part of Russia is a defeat, even an Unofficial country.
Given that Russia is currently occupying Crimea and has already incorporated it into Russia under Russian law then there are only two possible outcomes. Either the Russian occupation of Crimea continues, or Ukraine succeeds in forcing Russia out, and Crimea is reincorporated into Ukraine.
Your discussion of some sort of fantasy scenario of Crimea being neither in Ukraine or Russia shows that you are much less connected to the reality of the situation than the "chairborne division" that you denigrate.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Malmesbury, apologies I did not see your post.
Interesting response. Where would you put Crimea in all of this ? Could you see Russia accepting anything less than Crimea being a Russian entity ? I think in terms of Putin anything less than Crimea being a part of Russia is a defeat, even an Unofficial country.
Given that Russia is currently occupying Crimea and has already incorporated it into Russia under Russian law then there are only two possible outcomes. Either the Russian occupation of Crimea continues, or Ukraine succeeds in forcing Russia out, and Crimea is reincorporated into Ukraine.
Your discussion of some sort of fantasy scenario of Crimea being neither in Ukraine or Russia shows that you are much less connected to the reality of the situation than the "chairborne division" that you denigrate.
I shall print this off, read it, and mull over it and give it all the thought and time it merits.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Malmesbury, apologies I did not see your post.
Interesting response. Where would you put Crimea in all of this ? Could you see Russia accepting anything less than Crimea being a Russian entity ? I think in terms of Putin anything less than Crimea being a part of Russia is a defeat, even an Unofficial country.
Given that Russia is currently occupying Crimea and has already incorporated it into Russia under Russian law then there are only two possible outcomes. Either the Russian occupation of Crimea continues, or Ukraine succeeds in forcing Russia out, and Crimea is reincorporated into Ukraine.
Your discussion of some sort of fantasy scenario of Crimea being neither in Ukraine or Russia shows that you are much less connected to the reality of the situation than the "chairborne division" that you denigrate.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Barring some unforeseen deterioration in the RF military situation I don't think 3 is enough to declare victory and halt the SMO. They need to get Odessa to make it seem worthwhile.
They would like regime change in Kiev to one not based around a quiz team but that situation is harder to influence since Green T-Shirt has cancelled elections and gone a bit caudillo.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Acquiring only the Donbass wouldn't be such a triumph when you consider the initial war aim was to take the whole country.
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.
All very positive, but how would you deal with self-ID?
In practice, I think it would have to be age - or time since licence obtained - based, given what - if IRRC - we saw with insurance. In fact, time since licence gained might be more defensible* and would also put restrictions on those who lost licences for various reasons (might be better in some cases to have a shorter ban and then graduated return rather than current ban and then back to doing whatever you like).
*it's partly age, but also partly experience - I got my licence at age 17, but drove very little until I bought a car after uni aged 21. I was a pretty crap driver for a while until I got more experience, probably worse than when I'd just passed my test. Of course, time since licence or age both probably wouldn't help with my case.
Self-ID is a rounding error, and probably manageable, and perhaps gets far more attention that it deserves.
In the 2021 census 0.5% of adult over 16 answered "no" to " “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”.
Gender Change surgery is an even smaller rounding error - at approximately one person per day, or ~350 per annum *, on the latest figures I can find.
(* This is the Daily Mail having kittens in 2023 about how MANY it is.)
So an exception procedure should do it if we distinguish between sexes.
Another way would be progressive hazard perception tests applied to all, for example, if the men whine too much.
I span my parent's family car off a frosty roundabout at 17 and 8 months. My sister did the same to my first car 5 days after I bought it due to snow inexperience; she was 18.
I agree about graduated returns from bans - I'm a fan of indeterminate bans with proof of mental health required before driving privileges are earned back.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Malmesbury, apologies I did not see your post.
Interesting response. Where would you put Crimea in all of this ? Could you see Russia accepting anything less than Crimea being a Russian entity ? I think in terms of Putin anything less than Crimea being a part of Russia is a defeat, even an Unofficial country.
If Russia loses hold of Crimea, I suspect that would be a Window Moment for Putin.
Putin will only (easily) accept* ending the war with more territory than Russia controlled at the start - even that would be a climbdown for him.
Given the hammering that Ukraine has given the Black Sea fleet, Crimea, and part of Russia, I would imagine that he will try and hold out for total disarmament of Ukraine - complete with a compliant government.
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.
Fair enough - I don't disagree. I just don't believe the UPF meme will make any difference. We need to know specifically what food content is unhealthy. IMO, a better approach would be to update food labels for the digital age. You should be able to scan your food label with your phone, and get the app of your choice to tell you how healthy it is - either by having the content information in a QR code,or by requiring the manufacturers to upload the data to an open database linked to the existing barcode.
Recent research thinking* does seem to suggest that it's not just the content (as traditionally nutritionally measured) that matters but also how processed. More energy extraction/weight gain for example from a more processed food with equivalent calorie content.
The hypothesis being that the processing makes the energy more available as the food is easier to break down, being pre-processed to a greater extent (either making more of the energy recoverable or requiring less energy for the digestion, or both).
*I've skimmed some/pre-prints and articles, but this isn't my field and I don't have them to hand. It may be that this doesn't stand up to scrutiny anyway, but you can see the logic. Going to extremes, there is interest now in possible benefits of blended diets (blended up real food) for gastrostomy-fed children rather than using formula (essentially similar to baby-formula, but formulated for age-appropriate nutrition, previously very much the standard approach) which is ultra-processed - e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.15799
Yeah. I’ve read a lot of that too. I’m tempted to think that a lifestyle multiplier applies.
habits x diet = health. bad x bad = BAD
Which is just annoying. Because I know what I want and it isn’t just broccoli.
"Cause of the disruption Central line trains are experiencing higher than normal rates of motor failure after more than 30 years in operation, which means we have fewer trains available for service each day.
Separately, due to issues with track monitoring equipment, there are temporary speed restrictions in some locations which mean trains may run slower than normal."
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Barring some unforeseen deterioration in the RF military situation I don't think 3 is enough to declare victory and halt the SMO. They need to get Odessa to make it seem worthwhile.
They would like regime change in Kiev to one not based around a quiz team but that situation is harder to influence since Green T-Shirt has cancelled elections and gone a bit caudillo.
And you pretend not to troll...
"Article 83 of the Ukrainian Constitution states that if the term of the Verkhovna Rada expires under martial law, it shall automatically be extended until a new Rada is seated following the end of martial law. Article 19 of Ukraine’s martial law legislation specifically forbids conducting national elections. Thus, for Ukraine to conduct elections while under martial law would be a violation of legal norms that predate Zelensky and the full-scale Russian invasion."
Whereas, as usual, you offer no criticism of Putin, who is a real dictator, and a fascist, and an imperialist. You (wrongly) attack Zelensky for the very things his opponent is.
Why? Are you sniffing the fetid output of Telegram channels so much that you actually believe the shit, or are you just a pathetic little troll. Or, perhaps, both?
"Cause of the disruption Central line trains are experiencing higher than normal rates of motor failure after more than 30 years in operation, which means we have fewer trains available for service each day.
Separately, due to issues with track monitoring equipment, there are temporary speed restrictions in some locations which mean trains may run slower than normal."
I remember travelling on those Central line trains when they were brand new and shiny. The comparison between the new and old stock was quite something - like going from black-and-white to colour TV.
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.
I don't totally buy the idea that if Putin wins in Ukraine it will be step one in the greater (re)conquest of Eastern Europe. I'm very pro-Ukraine but it's not primarily for that reason. For me this is about not allowing the unprovoked mass slaughter of innocent people to pay dividends for the guilty party. That's a deeply wrong and damaging outcome, regardless of its down-the-line consequences (which are impossible to forecast with any confidence anyway).
You would have enjoyed the play I saw last night. The Dream of a Ridiculous Man.
Very good indeed Greg Hicks was superb.
It ends with the sentiment if only everyone loved each other. Noble indeed if a smadge unrealistic.
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...)
I have already said here we should keep providing military aid.
I would say that our military aid needs to be 0.25% of GDP, as per the Latvian (?) assessment.
For us that would be around double what we provide now.
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...)
I have already said here we should keep providing military aid.
I would say that our military aid needs to be 0.25% of GDP, as per the Latvian (?) assessment.
For us that would be around double what we provide now.
Even that seems pretty tiny, in comparison to our GDP.
The 'Investigators' didn't actually investigate anything. Had they done so, they would have reached the correct conclusions in the majority of cases. What they were in fact tasked to do was demand money with menaces, which they did very well, but they were not capable of investigating because they were not trained or qualified to do so, and were generally simply not up to the task.
You see the same at every level of the organisation - managers who could not manage, accountants with a feeble grasp of what accountancy entails, lawyers who did not know the law, administrators who were poor at administration.
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.
This is very confusing for @Leon, who things that Putin is the world's greatest authority on 'woke', but is also in favour of tossers burning the Koran in front of mosques as often as possible. Try that in Russia Comrade Leonski!
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Barring some unforeseen deterioration in the RF military situation I don't think 3 is enough to declare victory and halt the SMO. They need to get Odessa to make it seem worthwhile.
They would like regime change in Kiev to one not based around a quiz team but that situation is harder to influence since Green T-Shirt has cancelled elections and gone a bit caudillo.
All war leaders go a bit Churchill & the generals...
But I have rather more confidence in a victorious Zelensky voluntarily retiring from politics postwar - as he's said he'll do - than you might have in Putin doing the same.
Also 'caudillo' seems rather inappropriate. But I understand you tend to deprecate democracy as an institution, so it's more vibe than analysis.
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.
This is very confusing for @Leon, who things that Putin is the world's greatest authority on 'woke', but is also in favour of tossers burning the Koran in front of mosques as often as possible. Try that in Russia Comrade Leonski!
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.
All very positive, but how would you deal with self-ID?
In practice, I think it would have to be age - or time since licence obtained - based, given what - if IRRC - we saw with insurance. In fact, time since licence gained might be more defensible* and would also put restrictions on those who lost licences for various reasons (might be better in some cases to have a shorter ban and then graduated return rather than current ban and then back to doing whatever you like).
*it's partly age, but also partly experience - I got my licence at age 17, but drove very little until I bought a car after uni aged 21. I was a pretty crap driver for a while until I got more experience, probably worse than when I'd just passed my test. Of course, time since licence or age both probably wouldn't help with my case.
Self-ID is a rounding error, and probably manageable, and perhaps gets far more attention that it deserves.
In the 2021 census 0.5% of adult over 16 answered "no" to " “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”.
Gender Change surgery is an even smaller rounding error - at approximately one person per day, or ~350 per annum *, on the latest figures I can find.
(* This is the Daily Mail having kittens in 2023 about how MANY it is.)
So an exception procedure should do it if we distinguish between sexes.
Another way would be progressive hazard perception tests applied to all, for example, if the men whine too much.
I span my parent's family car off a frosty roundabout at 17 and 8 months. My sister did the same to my first car 5 days after I bought it due to snow inexperience; she was 18.
I agree about graduated returns from bans - I'm a fan of indeterminate bans with proof of mental health required before driving privileges are earned back.
The self-ID question was not a genuine enquiry, if I'm honest. Just trying to reignite the trans debate and cause trouble.
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...)
I have already said here we should keep providing military aid.
I would say that our military aid needs to be 0.25% of GDP, as per the Latvian (?) assessment.
For us that would be around double what we provide now.
Even that seems pretty tiny, in comparison to our GDP.
It is. If nothing else, much of it would be spent on expanding military production capability in NATO countries.
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...)
I have already said here we should keep providing military aid.
I would say that our military aid needs to be 0.25% of GDP, as per the Latvian (?) assessment.
For us that would be around double what we provide now.
Even that seems pretty tiny, in comparison to our GDP.
UK GDP is £2.27trillion.
0.25% is 1/400 which is £6 billion per annum - or around 1/8-1/10 of our Defence Budget.
UK total military aid to Ukr so far since Feb 2022 to 24/25 is £7.1 billion or a run rate of ~£2.5 billion per annum.
So it's actually an increase of 150% per annum not just double. I had missed that the £7.1 billion is quite so future-weighted.
To me, we generally stopped being so urgent about it when we lost Ben Wallace as Def Sec.
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.
This is very confusing for @Leon, who things that Putin is the world's greatest authority on 'woke', but is also in favour of tossers burning the Koran in front of mosques as often as possible. Try that in Russia Comrade Leonski!
i remain weirdly unconfused
I can vouch for at least half of that.
Well, Zelensky is (according to various sources on Telegram) a Nazi Jewish Ant-semitic Zionist Muslim.
Which shows an admirable coalition building ability, if nothing else.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Malmesbury, apologies I did not see your post.
Interesting response. Where would you put Crimea in all of this ? Could you see Russia accepting anything less than Crimea being a Russian entity ? I think in terms of Putin anything less than Crimea being a part of Russia is a defeat, even an Unofficial country.
Given that Russia is currently occupying Crimea and has already incorporated it into Russia under Russian law then there are only two possible outcomes. Either the Russian occupation of Crimea continues, or Ukraine succeeds in forcing Russia out, and Crimea is reincorporated into Ukraine.
Your discussion of some sort of fantasy scenario of Crimea being neither in Ukraine or Russia shows that you are much less connected to the reality of the situation than the "chairborne division" that you denigrate.
I shall print this off, read it, and mull over it and give it all the thought and time it merits.
I've tried to engage with you on the substance of the issue and all you have in return is insults.
Not one of his better efforts though. The gist seems to be that because 'the markets' are ultimately composed of human beings, then there is human agency at play and therefore a conspiracy (of some sort) must have existed to send Liz to her doom. QED.
Not one of his better efforts though. The gist seems to be that because 'the markets' are ultimately composed of human beings, then there is human agency at play and therefore a conspiracy (of some sort) must have existed to send Liz to her doom. QED.
Truss is right about a lot of things IMO. But her presentation skills are terrible.
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.
All very positive, but how would you deal with self-ID?
In practice, I think it would have to be age - or time since licence obtained - based, given what - if IRRC - we saw with insurance. In fact, time since licence gained might be more defensible* and would also put restrictions on those who lost licences for various reasons (might be better in some cases to have a shorter ban and then graduated return rather than current ban and then back to doing whatever you like).
*it's partly age, but also partly experience - I got my licence at age 17, but drove very little until I bought a car after uni aged 21. I was a pretty crap driver for a while until I got more experience, probably worse than when I'd just passed my test. Of course, time since licence or age both probably wouldn't help with my case.
Self-ID is a rounding error, and probably manageable, and perhaps gets far more attention that it deserves.
In the 2021 census 0.5% of adult over 16 answered "no" to " “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”.
Gender Change surgery is an even smaller rounding error - at approximately one person per day, or ~350 per annum *, on the latest figures I can find.
(* This is the Daily Mail having kittens in 2023 about how MANY it is.)
So an exception procedure should do it if we distinguish between sexes.
Another way would be progressive hazard perception tests applied to all, for example, if the men whine too much.
I span my parent's family car off a frosty roundabout at 17 and 8 months. My sister did the same to my first car 5 days after I bought it due to snow inexperience; she was 18.
I agree about graduated returns from bans - I'm a fan of indeterminate bans with proof of mental health required before driving privileges are earned back.
The self-ID question was not a genuine enquiry, if I'm honest. Just trying to reignite the trans debate and cause trouble.
Agree on the rest.
If you want to cause trouble… I think there’s a parallel between vaping and puberty blockers. The Cass review discusses at length the limited evidence base for puberty blockers. Vaping seems to be safer than smoking, but again we lack long-term evidence.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Malmesbury, apologies I did not see your post.
Interesting response. Where would you put Crimea in all of this ? Could you see Russia accepting anything less than Crimea being a Russian entity ? I think in terms of Putin anything less than Crimea being a part of Russia is a defeat, even an Unofficial country.
Given that Russia is currently occupying Crimea and has already incorporated it into Russia under Russian law then there are only two possible outcomes. Either the Russian occupation of Crimea continues, or Ukraine succeeds in forcing Russia out, and Crimea is reincorporated into Ukraine.
Your discussion of some sort of fantasy scenario of Crimea being neither in Ukraine or Russia shows that you are much less connected to the reality of the situation than the "chairborne division" that you denigrate.
I shall print this off, read it, and mull over it and give it all the thought and time it merits.
I've tried to engage with you on the substance of the issue and all you have in return is insults.
There can be no greater insult on PB than to tell someone you are planning to read carefully what they have posted.
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Barring some unforeseen deterioration in the RF military situation I don't think 3 is enough to declare victory and halt the SMO. They need to get Odessa to make it seem worthwhile.
They would like regime change in Kiev to one not based around a quiz team but that situation is harder to influence since Green T-Shirt has cancelled elections and gone a bit caudillo.
And you pretend not to troll...
"Article 83 of the Ukrainian Constitution states that if the term of the Verkhovna Rada expires under martial law, it shall automatically be extended until a new Rada is seated following the end of martial law. Article 19 of Ukraine’s martial law legislation specifically forbids conducting national elections. Thus, for Ukraine to conduct elections while under martial law would be a violation of legal norms that predate Zelensky and the full-scale Russian invasion."
Whereas, as usual, you offer no criticism of Putin, who is a real dictator, and a fascist, and an imperialist. You (wrongly) attack Zelensky for the very things his opponent is.
Why? Are you sniffing the fetid output of Telegram channels so much that you actually believe the shit, or are you just a pathetic little troll. Or, perhaps, both?
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.
Please can you define
1) Win for Putin 2) Draw 3) Win for Ukraine
Genuine question.
i Well, 3 possible outcomes - 1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine 2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw 3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Acquiring only the Donbass wouldn't be such a triumph when you consider the initial war aim was to take the whole country.
Yes, well, too bad. Although I share some of the scepticism about Ukrainian nationalist ultras, I think it's entirely legitimate for the West not to want a clear Putin victory to emerge from the invasion. We need to show that invasion doesn't pay, without encouraging the "every inch of Donbas and Crimea must be Ukrainian" camp. Offering a deal with 2) or 3), backed up by a NATO presence in Ukraine to make further incursion=World War 3, seems to me better than encouraging Ukraine to fight for years. Ukraine isn't monolithic, and as long as we say we'll keep supplying more and better weapons until they win, it squeezes out those who would be willing to settle for roughly current lines.
Some say Putin wouldn't accept that. OK, then the war continues until he or his successors see sense, but the West needs a strategy for a deal which is more than carrying on indefinitely. Otherwise the ultras on both sides have no incentive to even negotiate.
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.
All very positive, but how would you deal with self-ID?
In practice, I think it would have to be age - or time since licence obtained - based, given what - if IRRC - we saw with insurance. In fact, time since licence gained might be more defensible* and would also put restrictions on those who lost licences for various reasons (might be better in some cases to have a shorter ban and then graduated return rather than current ban and then back to doing whatever you like).
*it's partly age, but also partly experience - I got my licence at age 17, but drove very little until I bought a car after uni aged 21. I was a pretty crap driver for a while until I got more experience, probably worse than when I'd just passed my test. Of course, time since licence or age both probably wouldn't help with my case.
Self-ID is a rounding error, and probably manageable, and perhaps gets far more attention that it deserves.
In the 2021 census 0.5% of adult over 16 answered "no" to " “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”.
Gender Change surgery is an even smaller rounding error - at approximately one person per day, or ~350 per annum *, on the latest figures I can find.
(* This is the Daily Mail having kittens in 2023 about how MANY it is.)
So an exception procedure should do it if we distinguish between sexes.
Another way would be progressive hazard perception tests applied to all, for example, if the men whine too much.
I span my parent's family car off a frosty roundabout at 17 and 8 months. My sister did the same to my first car 5 days after I bought it due to snow inexperience; she was 18.
I agree about graduated returns from bans - I'm a fan of indeterminate bans with proof of mental health required before driving privileges are earned back.
The self-ID question was not a genuine enquiry, if I'm honest. Just trying to reignite the trans debate and cause trouble.
Agree on the rest.
If you want to cause trouble… I think there’s a parallel between vaping and puberty blockers. The Cass review discusses at length the limited evidence base for puberty blockers. Vaping seems to be safer than smoking, but again we lack long-term evidence.
True. So we should follow the Cass Review and ban vaping except as part of research studies? Afterall, any denied blockers vapes can simply smoke, right?
Comments
Get thee gone
Despite that the Ukraine ultras on here were predicting defeat and financial collapse within days
According to David Nutt's quantitative estimates, published in 2007 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4), in Table 3 in the "dependence" category, he puts tobacco at 2.3 for pleasure, 2.6 for psychological dependence and 1.8 for physical dependence, for a mean of 2.21 (should be 2.23?) and alcohol at 2.3 for pleasure, 1.9 for psychological dependence and 1.6 for physical dependence, for a mean of 1.93.
The alternative to high consumer savings is consumer spending which creates jobs and all that good stuff that banking was supposed to be when rcs's text books were written. But again, this is not what happens, or it is but not here. Consumers are prone to spend money on imports which create jobs abroad, or tourism which creates jobs abroad. Now, to a very limited extent this can be offset by newly-enriched foreigners spending money to create jobs here but Brexit makes it harder and it was pretty limited before.
So basically rcs is wrong and we are all screwed apart from the rich who will get richer thanks to asset price inflation so my advice to any children out there is to choose your parents carefully.
In practice, I think it would have to be age - or time since licence obtained - based, given what - if IRRC - we saw with insurance. In fact, time since licence gained might be more defensible* and would also put restrictions on those who lost licences for various reasons (might be better in some cases to have a shorter ban and then graduated return rather than current ban and then back to doing whatever you like).
*it's partly age, but also partly experience - I got my licence at age 17, but drove very little until I bought a car after uni aged 21. I was a pretty crap driver for a while until I got more experience, probably worse than when I'd just passed my test. Of course, time since licence or age both probably wouldn't help with my case.
When Boeing suffered a major failure during the first test flight of their Strainer capsule, it turned out that they didn't simulate and test the full software stack for a full mission. Because they said it was too hard.
NASA did an investigation - which they were told to turn into an investigation of both vendors. In the hope, by Boeing supporters in Congress, to make it "We are just as bad as them"
It turned out that that the SpaceX methodology was that
1) All code changes trigger a build-test cycle.
2) All code changes trigger unit, functional, integration, stability, performance and about 50 other types of testing.
3) All code changes then go into a build which is tested further. Then run on a test spacecraft for a full mission.
So change a word in a comment and it will end up in a full, all up test before it flies.
To everyone in software development this is just sensible. I've worked in places that did this for far less critical systems than manned space flight.
"Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich
Millennials were poorer at this stage in their lives. So were baby-boomers"
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich
BTW the though that small shops in inner cities are going to decline to sell fags to 43 year olds but will to 44 year olds is delusional. Nor is it enforceable.
https://news.sky.com/story/post-office-boss-nick-read-exonerated-after-investigation-into-bullying-allegations-13117048
Also the article is paywalled so there's no way to test the assertions because we don't know what they are.
I don’t think you’d use a real KGB traitor. Potentially embarrassing and reminds the institution of their failure.
So you grab someone off the street
“But I’ve done nothing!”
“That’s what they all say…”
“Aaaaargh!”
As an annoying git, I think we should couple the tobacco age-restriction elevator bill with an ecstasy age-permission elevator bill. At or below the (rising) cut-off age it becomes illegal to buy or possess tobacco, but legal to buy and possess ecstasy (from licenced sources). Above the cut-off age the reverse is true. Let's do something for the kids for a change
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/post-office-plotted-to-raid-sub-postmasters-pensions-inquiry-hears/ar-BB1lJw8V?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=ee2f7f40c7b54cd58b203f94171b126c&ei=11
There was definitely a big Pooh sticks competition at the bridge I mentioned - must have misunderstood what I was told when going that way by accident on the day. One thing for sure, they'll have to rethink their event for future repeats ...
The hypothesis being that the processing makes the energy more available as the food is easier to break down, being pre-processed to a greater extent (either making more of the energy recoverable or requiring less energy for the digestion, or both).
*I've skimmed some/pre-prints and articles, but this isn't my field and I don't have them to hand. It may be that this doesn't stand up to scrutiny anyway, but you can see the logic. Going to extremes, there is interest now in possible benefits of blended diets (blended up real food) for gastrostomy-fed children rather than using formula (essentially similar to baby-formula, but formulated for age-appropriate nutrition, previously very much the standard approach) which is ultra-processed - e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.15799
..I study the man's face in the hope of finding there signs of madness. It's easier for madmen in this world. But there are no such signs on that handsome manly face. It is not distorted by the imprint of madness. It is simply that he doesn't want to go into the furnace and is trying somehow to make that clear. But what can he do except scream? So he screams. Fortunately that scream is not recorded for posterity. Then his patent-leather shoes go into the fire, and that is that. The fire flares up. Oxygen being pumped in, no doubt. The two attendants at the front jump away to the side, while the two at the end give the stretcher a good push into the depths of the furnace. The furnace doors close and the sound of the projector dies out.
'Who was he?' I don't really know why I ask such a question.
'He was a colonel, a former colonel. He worked in our organization in important posts. But he deceived us..
'Suvorov"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov
I know which of the two I think is reckless, Rocky.
But not really something you can fact check.
Like many leftists, you are much more vocal about Palestine than you are about Ukraine. It's interesting to ponder why that is: especially when combined with your excusing and denial of Corbyn's anti-semitism.
https://www.visitthames.co.uk/play-poohsticks-along-the-river-thames
With smoking this is a very steep slide, much steeper than for alcohol.
Well, 3 possible outcomes -
1) the Donbass becomes like the "Serb entity" - autonomy within Ukraine but no right to secede - win for Ukraine
2) the Donbass becomes like Turkish Northern Cyprus - an unofficial country of its own - draw
3) the Donbass absorbed into Russia - win for Putin
Interesting response. Where would you put Crimea in all of this ? Could you see Russia accepting anything less than Crimea being a Russian entity ? I think in terms of Putin anything less than Crimea being a part of Russia is a defeat, even an Unofficial country.
Very good indeed Greg Hicks was superb.
It ends with the sentiment if only everyone loved each other. Noble indeed if a smadge unrealistic.
Your discussion of some sort of fantasy scenario of Crimea being neither in Ukraine or Russia shows that you are much less connected to the reality of the situation than the "chairborne division" that you denigrate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56RrmlmJFH8
They would like regime change in Kiev to one not based around a quiz team but that situation is harder to influence since Green T-Shirt has cancelled elections and gone a bit caudillo.
In the 2021 census 0.5% of adult over 16 answered "no" to " “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”.
Gender Change surgery is an even smaller rounding error - at approximately one person per day, or ~350 per annum *, on the latest figures I can find.
(* This is the Daily Mail having kittens in 2023 about how MANY it is.)
So an exception procedure should do it if we distinguish between sexes.
Another way would be progressive hazard perception tests applied to all, for example, if the men whine too much.
I span my parent's family car off a frosty roundabout at 17 and 8 months. My sister did the same to my first car 5 days after I bought it due to snow inexperience; she was 18.
I agree about graduated returns from bans - I'm a fan of indeterminate bans with proof of mental health required before driving privileges are earned back.
Putin will only (easily) accept* ending the war with more territory than Russia controlled at the start - even that would be a climbdown for him.
Given the hammering that Ukraine has given the Black Sea fleet, Crimea, and part of Russia, I would imagine that he will try and hold out for total disarmament of Ukraine - complete with a compliant government.
*I believe.
habits x diet = health.
bad x bad = BAD
Which is just annoying. Because I know what I want and it isn’t just broccoli.
Looks like Transport for London may have blundered slightly in not spending enough money on maintaining Central Line trains over the years.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/tube/central-line-disruption?intcmp=75554
"Cause of the disruption
Central line trains are experiencing higher than normal rates of motor failure after more than 30 years in operation, which means we have fewer trains available for service each day.
Separately, due to issues with track monitoring equipment, there are temporary speed restrictions in some locations which mean trains may run slower than normal."
"Article 83 of the Ukrainian Constitution states that if the term of the Verkhovna Rada expires under martial law, it shall automatically be extended until a new Rada is seated following the end of martial law. Article 19 of Ukraine’s martial law legislation specifically forbids conducting national elections. Thus, for Ukraine to conduct elections while under martial law would be a violation of legal norms that predate Zelensky and the full-scale Russian invasion."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/11/ukraine-democracy-wartime-elections-russia-zelensky/
Whereas, as usual, you offer no criticism of Putin, who is a real dictator, and a fascist, and an imperialist. You (wrongly) attack Zelensky for the very things his opponent is.
Why? Are you sniffing the fetid output of Telegram channels so much that you actually believe the shit, or are you just a pathetic little troll. Or, perhaps, both?
For us that would be around double what we provide now.
You see the same at every level of the organisation - managers who could not manage, accountants with a feeble grasp of what accountancy entails, lawyers who did not know the law, administrators who were poor at administration.
It was a thoroughly dysfunction organsation.
But I have rather more confidence in a victorious Zelensky voluntarily retiring from politics postwar - as he's said he'll do - than you might have in Putin doing the same.
Also 'caudillo' seems rather inappropriate. But I understand you tend to deprecate democracy as an institution, so it's more vibe than analysis.
Agree on the rest.
0.25% is 1/400 which is £6 billion per annum - or around 1/8-1/10 of our Defence Budget.
UK total military aid to Ukr so far since Feb 2022 to 24/25 is £7.1 billion or a run rate of ~£2.5 billion per annum.
So it's actually an increase of 150% per annum not just double. I had missed that the £7.1 billion is quite so future-weighted.
To me, we generally stopped being so urgent about it when we lost Ben Wallace as Def Sec.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/#:~:text=The UK has pledged almost,of funding for 2024/25.
Which shows an admirable coalition building ability, if nothing else.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/04/17/liz-truss-and-the-tyranny-of-the-markets/
Not one of his better efforts though. The gist seems to be that because 'the markets' are ultimately composed of human beings, then there is human agency at play and therefore a conspiracy (of some sort) must have existed to send Liz to her doom. QED.
No, she's not.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/17/dubai-floods-uae-rainfall-weather-forecast
Johnson takes plunge on Ukraine aid in face of ouster threat
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4598253-johnson-ukraine-aid-ouster-threat/
Probably more important to the outcome of the war than anything on the battlefield.
Some say Putin wouldn't accept that. OK, then the war continues until he or his successors see sense, but the West needs a strategy for a deal which is more than carrying on indefinitely. Otherwise the ultras on both sides have no incentive to even negotiate.