My WAG (and hope!) is that this is because their earlier incursions gave us warning, and allowed corporations and governmental organisations to improve security. Perhaps.
Perhaps? I see little evidence that corporate or government cybersecurity has improved by much. Only in the last few weeks we've found out that Chinese hackers had widespread access to the CALEA lawful access capabilities of US telecoms networks. i.e. The "safe" backdoor for law enforcement has proved to be the disaster that many expert cryptographers warned it would be.
I assume that the main reason we don't see large scale attacks is that it is far more valuable for our enemies to surveil systems and emplace malware, and that they are keeping their powder dry.
Yes, that's quite plausible. It's quite possible a very secret war is going on already, with each side infiltrating each other's systems.
A load of media talk about the threat of cyber war and how Russia might turn the lights off. I refuse to believe that Russia's cyber capabilities are greater than Nato's but we clearly aren't deterring them from doing it. Is it really beyond the wit of everyone in Nato to see that they only way to deal with Putin is through the threat of retaliation. At no point does the suggestion even appeared to have been on the table.
Cyber warfare is the duck that has yet to really quack in this war. A decade ago, Russian hacker groups were regularly attempting, or managing, to penetrate our systems. Back in Feb 22, I expected more of the same. There's been some, but nowhere near as much as I expected, and not as disruptive. Cyber warfare is a potentially very cheap and exceptionally disruptive form of warfare.
My WAG (and hope!) is that this is because their earlier incursions gave us warning, and allowed corporations and governmental organisations to improve security. Perhaps.
It's all very well patting ourselves on the back about our defensive capabilities but when are we going to threaten to go on the offensive?
That's a good question. Perhaps we don't want to, as we cannot be sure that the Russians don't have a really effective attack ready in response. If they're not attacking us in a major way, we will not attack them. Also, we are *technically* not at war with Russia. The stuff we're doing (sanctions, etc) are legal, non-war actions.
But everyone keeps worrying about possible Russian cyber attacks, see Pat McFadden's speech. Where's the effective deterrence.
Oh, the majority are just drek, and they clearly ran out of ideas a long time ago and scrape the barrel for new thoughts, but about 1 in 5 are cheesily good, and there can be fun in identifying the 10-15% which are actually decent, by virtue of slightly better acting/writing than the rest on the conveyor built. A good earner as well for attractive actresses in their late 30s/early 40s who make up the majority of leads.
I like to watch out for which ones were obviously filmed in mid july, versus ones which had a bit more money and can film in winter, or pay for a snow machine.
Home Alone is the correct answer for best Christmas movie. We watched it last year after dinner and I don't think I've seen my niece laugh as much at anything since. She's literally been counting down the days until she can watch it again this year after my sister promised she could. It's a brilliant movie.
Whatever monster that skinned the Labour Party and is now wearing its flesh like a suit is continuing on its mission to pimp out the British to whatever foreigner will pay the most. Tom Watson is now an advisor to Palantir
Home Alone is the correct answer for best Christmas movie. We watched it last year after dinner and I don't think I've seen my niece laugh as much at anything since. She's literally been counting down the days until she can watch it again this year after my sister promised she could. It's a brilliant movie.
Home Alone is the correct answer for best Christmas movie. We watched it last year after dinner and I don't think I've seen my niece laugh as much at anything since. She's literally been counting down the days until she can watch it again this year after my sister promised she could. It's a brilliant movie.
Zero chance of that. No presidential nominee of one of the 2 main parties who lost the election having never won a presidential election before has been nominated by their party again at the next presidential election since Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and that was only because no other Democrat fancied their chances of stopping an IKE second term and on that they were correct.
Nixon lost in 1960 but only ran again in 1968, 8 years later. Trump lost in 2020 but of course he had already proved he could win a presidential election in 2016. Harris says she might run for California governor next time which may be viable but the Democrats will want a less woke and less coastal candidate from the rustbelt or Midwest who is probably a white male like Shapiro or Buttigieg to take on VP Vance in 2028.
Otherwise she could hope for a senior Cabinet role in a future Democrat President's administration at best, as 2004 loser John Kerry became Obama's Secretary of State for example
Home Alone is the correct answer for best Christmas movie. We watched it last year after dinner and I don't think I've seen my niece laugh as much at anything since. She's literally been counting down the days until she can watch it again this year after my sister promised she could. It's a brilliant movie.
Heard some of that on the Today program this morning. If that was the highlights I wouldn’t be bothered about the rest. Still smug, conceited and keen to blame everyone else for her egregious failures.
I've no strong view on Merkel, but I do get the impression that much of the scathing criticism of her is made with a huge dollop of hindsight. My memory is that she was highly regarded by most people, of various political stripes, for much of the 16 years she was in power.
Well yes. I think it was commented earlier that there are almost no politicians on the world stage whise star has fallen so far after leaving office. Apart from Gerhard Schroder.
Even when she elected to import 1 million people from the Middle East, the median reaction was just a "that's brave". Because it was assumed she was caoable and knew what she was doing. Only belatedly did it become apparent hiw catastrophic her decision making had been.
Fiscally she left a balanced budget and handled Covid and lockdowns well even if her asylum policies were perhaps too liberal and led to the rise of the AfD.
She gave a good interview on what she did in office and what she learnt from it
She was several leagues above David Cameron, let's not kid ourselves.
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
"I worked in a bar in Laos. I know what goes into those lethal drinks
At 19, I was offered the job in return for unlimited food and drink. As the weeks passed, things got increasingly sinister. It ended with me spending a night in jail
Heard some of that on the Today program this morning. If that was the highlights I wouldn’t be bothered about the rest. Still smug, conceited and keen to blame everyone else for her egregious failures.
I've no strong view on Merkel, but I do get the impression that much of the scathing criticism of her is made with a huge dollop of hindsight. My memory is that she was highly regarded by most people, of various political stripes, for much of the 16 years she was in power.
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
Oh, the majority are just drek, and they clearly ran out of ideas a long time ago and scrape the barrel for new thoughts, but about 1 in 5 are cheesily good, and there can be fun in identifying the 10-15% which are actually decent, by virtue of slightly better acting/writing than the rest on the conveyor built. A good earner as well for attractive actresses in their late 30s/early 40s who make up the majority of leads.
I like to watch out for which ones were obviously filmed in mid july, versus ones which had a bit more money and can film in winter, or pay for a snow machine.
They all have an identical storyline:
Couple meet under contrived circumstances. Initially they can't stand each other. But by Christmas Day they have fallen in love.
In addition to the main pair, other compulsory characters include:
Her sensible friend. The gay couple running a deli/coffee shop/gift shop/florist. A set of parents who always host the perfect Christmas.
Sometimes there is also her ex, who is a bit of a twat.
Bill Sweeney, the Rugby Football Union’s chief executive, will be paid £1.1 million this year having received a pre-agreed performance bonus, despite recent redundancies and cost-cutting at Twickenham. Sweeney’s annual base salary included a pay rise of 8.5 per cent from £684,000 to £742,000. According to the annual report, he has also received a one-off performance-based payment of £358,000.
You lose £40 million and you get a performance bonus.....
That's the private sector for you.
RFU isn't really private sector is a society owned by and to support the 1000s of member rugby clubs. But it is true that we have seen the same shit elsewhere, Natwest Banking scandal lady not only got her pay off is now in another big job, Howard Davies is a walking scandal magnet that has bounced between public and private sector.
The NU10K are equally at home in government or the private sector. And they especially love Third Sector institutions.
The best posts are those where the pesky shareholders or politicians are least likely to annoy. The Post Office was perfect - 100% government owned. 0% actual oversight.
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
Home Alone is the correct answer for best Christmas movie. We watched it last year after dinner and I don't think I've seen my niece laugh as much at anything since. She's literally been counting down the days until she can watch it again this year after my sister promised she could. It's a brilliant movie.
Our elder two went crazy for it last year. Lost track of how many times they watched it!
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
Tbf the first half of URS v GER went pretty well for the away team on the Ukrainian part of the pitch. However the match could truly be called a game of two halves.
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
Home Alone is the correct answer for best Christmas movie. We watched it last year after dinner and I don't think I've seen my niece laugh as much at anything since. She's literally been counting down the days until she can watch it again this year after my sister promised she could. It's a brilliant movie.
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
And such legal actions have occurred in the context of Shipman and others. Not to mention the Liverpool Pathway.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
I remember this question arising in a tabloid magazine more than 50 years ago. A doctor was quoted as saying he was so distressed by a patient's agony that he gave her a double dose of morphine to cut it short. The next morning, he reported, she was sitting up in bed asking for another boiled egg.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
Pitch it for the next Bond movie - worked for Mexico’s Day of the Dead parade. Which previously didn’t exist.
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
I remember this question arising in a tabloid magazine more than 50 years ago. A doctor was quoted as saying he was so distressed by a patient's agony that he gave her a double dose of morphine to cut it short. The next morning, he reported, she was sitting up in bed asking for another boiled egg.
Sounds like one of my aunts. 'Everybody" was convinced she wouldn't last the night; my father, her brother, went to say good bye. Next morning she ate two breakfasts and lived another 10 years.
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
All true. But on the other hand, despite what pro-Russians say, Ukraine is not a technologically backwards nation. In fact, a lot of the weapons, including high-tech ones, made by the USSR were made in Ukraine. Which is one reason Russia has problems building major warships.
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
And such legal actions have occurred in the context of Shipman and others. Not to mention the Liverpool Pathway.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
Not really. It's a recognised bit of medical practice to treat pain or respiratory distress with diamorphine, though obviously should be discussed with patient and relatives.
Shipman, Gosport etc are very different as not in discussion with patient or family.
Probably the most blatant British Euthanasia was the death of Lilian Boyes at the hands of Dr Nigel Cox* in 1991. He was convicted of attempted murder, given a suspended sentance and let off by the GMC. He returned to work at the same hospital shortly after.
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
You could celebrate with a Burns Supper towards the end of January, if you were inclined. There's nothing like some spicy chopped up offal encased in stomach, washed down with some whisky. For good or ill.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
The answer is clear. Christmas starts on the evening of 24th December. Until then it is Advent. Preparations have to be made of course - I start thinking days before, and until then I ignore it.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
How do you know they are Christmas lights?
Is it Christmas? No
At this point they are just lights...
In Leicester the lights go up for Diwali and stay up for Christmas, being dual purpose.
For a January celebration I am a big fan of Burns Night and always mark it with friends and Scottish poetry. We often also have Mc Gonnegals "Tay Bridge Disaster" to counterpoint the brilliant Scottish national bard.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
You could celebrate with a Burns Supper towards the end of January, if you were inclined. There's nothing like some spicy chopped up offal encased in stomach, washed down with some whisky. For good or ill.
Indeed so! I envy the Scotch their Burns supper. It is ideally timed to see you through from New Year to early March. Just a shame the Scottish winter lasts from late September to late April
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
All true. But on the other hand, despite what pro-Russians say, Ukraine is not a technologically backwards nation. In fact, a lot of the weapons, including high-tech ones, made by the USSR were made in Ukraine. Which is one reason Russia has problems building major warships.
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
The nuclear warhead programs were not in the Ukraine. A number of the missile programs were.
So the Ukrainians had possession of warheads they didn’t have the designs for. Or the specifications. Or the maintenance details.
Due to a lack of tritium production in Ukraine, all the warheads would become unusable in a year or 2. Tritium decays to Helium-3. Tritium is used in advanced nuclear weapons for 2 things. Boosting the primary (a bomb) and for the secondary (the h bomb bit). Helium-3 is a reaction poison - if even a small percentage of the tritium has turned into Helium-3, the primary will have nearly no yield if the gas is injected for boosting.
If you removed the tritium canisters completely, the primaries would yield perhaps 300 tons (TNT) equivalent. Which would be a very small bang.
And that would be dubious - the rest of the warhead needs maintenance. Soviet plutonium cores had corrosion problems due to crap nickel plating. Yes, really.
Ukraine would really have had to started a bomb program from scratch, using the material from the old Soviet warheads.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
It makes sense to look back to the medieval liturgical calendar for inspiration. They lived at a time without electric lighting, so it would have been worse for them and would have had to find ways to deal with the darkness. Plus they also would have raided the best bits of earlier pagan festivals.
And so, Candlemas. This is 40 days after Christmas and traditionally involves the congregation donating their last remaining candle to the clergy. Or something. The date (2nd February) is very close to the cross-quarter day (somewhere around the 4th-6th) - the midpoint between the midwinter solstice and the spring equinox, and so it marks the end of the darkest quarter of the year.
I would certainly encourage everyone to have a big celebration at around this time of year. You could do something with candles, perhaps the first flowers of spring. Big fires. Welcome back the sunlight. Let the cold of winter know that it's end is nigh.
If you keep Christmastide going for the full twelve days until epiphany, then it's only another four weeks to wait until Candlemas.
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
And such legal actions have occurred in the context of Shipman and others. Not to mention the Liverpool Pathway.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
Not really. It's a recognised bit of medical practice to treat pain or respiratory distress with diamorphine, though obviously should be discussed with patient and relatives.
Shipman, Gosport etc are very different as not in discussion with patient or family.
Probably the most blatant British Euthanasia was the death of Lilian Boyes at the hands of Dr Nigel Cox* in 1991. He was convicted of attempted murder, given a suspended sentance and let off by the GMC. He returned to work at the same hospital shortly after.
*lovely man and very caring. I looked after his patients as a junior doctor, possibly including Mrs Boyes.
Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that Cox was a very caring man. From the article I wouldn't call it "blatant Euthanasia". It was compassionate and desired by the patient and her family. It was a brave thing he did, given the legal peril.
That is why we need the assisted dying bill to clarify and legitimise this area. Otherwise it is grey and unmonitored.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
The answer is clear. Christmas starts on the evening of 24th December. Until then it is Advent. Preparations have to be made of course - I start thinking days before, and until then I ignore it.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
Interesting, thankyou!
But I think I shall use the Old Reliable. Fly south and east
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
And such legal actions have occurred in the context of Shipman and others. Not to mention the Liverpool Pathway.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
Not really. It's a recognised bit of medical practice to treat pain or respiratory distress with diamorphine, though obviously should be discussed with patient and relatives.
Shipman, Gosport etc are very different as not in discussion with patient or family.
Probably the most blatant British Euthanasia was the death of Lilian Boyes at the hands of Dr Nigel Cox* in 1991. He was convicted of attempted murder, given a suspended sentance and let off by the GMC. He returned to work at the same hospital shortly after.
*lovely man and very caring. I looked after his patients as a junior doctor, possibly including Mrs Boyes.
Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that Cox was a very caring man. From the article I wouldn't call it "blatant Euthanasia". It was compassionate and desired by the patient and her family. It was a brave thing he did, given the legal peril.
That is why we need the assisted dying bill to clarify and legitimise this area. Otherwise it is grey and unmonitored.
It was blatant euthanasia, and incidentally beyond the proposed bill in my understanding.
I think that bureaucratising End of Life Care into legalistic forms is not really a good thing. These events generally happen quickly, often over a few days. It should just have good practice guidelines, nothing more.
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
All true. But on the other hand, despite what pro-Russians say, Ukraine is not a technologically backwards nation. In fact, a lot of the weapons, including high-tech ones, made by the USSR were made in Ukraine. Which is one reason Russia has problems building major warships.
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
The nuclear warhead programs were not in the Ukraine. A number of the missile programs were.
So the Ukrainians had possession of warheads they didn’t have the designs for. Or the specifications. Or the maintenance details.
Due to a lack of tritium production in Ukraine, all the warheads would become unusable in a year or 2. Tritium decays to Helium-3. Tritium is used in advanced nuclear weapons for 2 things. Boosting the primary (a bomb) and for the secondary (the h bomb bit). Helium-3 is a reaction poison - if even a small percentage of the tritium has turned into Helium-3, the primary will have nearly no yield if the gas is injected for boosting.
If you removed the tritium canisters completely, the primaries would yield perhaps 300 tons (TNT) equivalent. Which would be a very small bang.
And that would be dubious - the rest of the warhead needs maintenance. Soviet plutonium cores had corrosion problems due to crap nickel plating. Yes, really.
Ukraine would really have had to started a bomb program from scratch, using the material from the old Soviet warheads.
That doesn't actually really go against anything I said. The Ukrainians are not dumb; and all they needed was enough *doubt* about what they were doing.
After all, Israel in no way managed to have a nuclear weapons program that developed a nuclear weapon that they absolutely do not have.
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
All true. But on the other hand, despite what pro-Russians say, Ukraine is not a technologically backwards nation. In fact, a lot of the weapons, including high-tech ones, made by the USSR were made in Ukraine. Which is one reason Russia has problems building major warships.
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
The nuclear warhead programs were not in the Ukraine. A number of the missile programs were.
So the Ukrainians had possession of warheads they didn’t have the designs for. Or the specifications. Or the maintenance details.
Due to a lack of tritium production in Ukraine, all the warheads would become unusable in a year or 2. Tritium decays to Helium-3. Tritium is used in advanced nuclear weapons for 2 things. Boosting the primary (a bomb) and for the secondary (the h bomb bit). Helium-3 is a reaction poison - if even a small percentage of the tritium has turned into Helium-3, the primary will have nearly no yield if the gas is injected for boosting.
If you removed the tritium canisters completely, the primaries would yield perhaps 300 tons (TNT) equivalent. Which would be a very small bang.
And that would be dubious - the rest of the warhead needs maintenance. Soviet plutonium cores had corrosion problems due to crap nickel plating. Yes, really.
Ukraine would really have had to started a bomb program from scratch, using the material from the old Soviet warheads.
But, as you’ve noted, it isn’t that complicated, if you have an existing arms industry and decent engineering expertise.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
You could celebrate with a Burns Supper towards the end of January, if you were inclined. There's nothing like some spicy chopped up offal encased in stomach, washed down with some whisky. For good or ill.
Indeed so! I envy the Scotch their Burns supper. It is ideally timed to see you through from New Year to early March. Just a shame the Scottish winter lasts from late September to late April
Now you're just flattering us with that short winter. You harlot.
Merkel says that allowing Ukraine to join NATO would have compromised NATO's security and she hoped it would have a relationship like Finland.
On that she was probably right, it would have seen Putin invade Ukraine much earlier
In the same way that Russia invaded the Baltic States to prevent them from joining NATO?
We have a natural experiment here. Russia have not yet invaded a NATO member, but they have invaded several countries who are not NATO members.
The conclusion to draw is pretty obvious. If Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008 then Russia would not have invaded.
No doubt it is because I am not a politician that it seemed to me obvious that the NATO countries should have said, as Russia was apparently preparing to invade, that an attack on Ukraine would be treated as an attack on NATO, giving the Russians the chance to decide it had just been military exercises.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
The answer is clear. Christmas starts on the evening of 24th December. Until then it is Advent. Preparations have to be made of course - I start thinking days before, and until then I ignore it.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
I kept my Christmas decorations up until Candlemas last year. Twinkly lights make me feel happy and it gave me a lot of pleasure explaining to people that my actions were right.
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
And such legal actions have occurred in the context of Shipman and others. Not to mention the Liverpool Pathway.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
Not really. It's a recognised bit of medical practice to treat pain or respiratory distress with diamorphine, though obviously should be discussed with patient and relatives.
Shipman, Gosport etc are very different as not in discussion with patient or family.
Probably the most blatant British Euthanasia was the death of Lilian Boyes at the hands of Dr Nigel Cox* in 1991. He was convicted of attempted murder, given a suspended sentance and let off by the GMC. He returned to work at the same hospital shortly after.
*lovely man and very caring. I looked after his patients as a junior doctor, possibly including Mrs Boyes.
Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that Cox was a very caring man. From the article I wouldn't call it "blatant Euthanasia". It was compassionate and desired by the patient and her family. It was a brave thing he did, given the legal peril.
That is why we need the assisted dying bill to clarify and legitimise this area. Otherwise it is grey and unmonitored.
It was blatant euthanasia, and incidentally beyond the proposed bill in my understanding.
I think that bureaucratising End of Life Care into legalistic forms is not really a good thing. These events generally happen quickly, often over a few days. It should just have good practice guidelines, nothing more.
Have you read the Wikipedia article? Can you place yourself in his position and feel the compassion? Or not?
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
The answer is clear. Christmas starts on the evening of 24th December. Until then it is Advent. Preparations have to be made of course - I start thinking days before, and until then I ignore it.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
Interesting, thankyou!
But I think I shall use the Old Reliable. Fly south and east
And down we went. In the mountains, there you feel free. I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
The answer is clear. Christmas starts on the evening of 24th December. Until then it is Advent. Preparations have to be made of course - I start thinking days before, and until then I ignore it.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
The ancients knew what they were doing. Save the proper feasting for the grimmest time of the year. We're the ones who have spoiled it by moving the fun to very late autumn.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
It makes sense to look back to the medieval liturgical calendar for inspiration. They lived at a time without electric lighting, so it would have been worse for them and would have had to find ways to deal with the darkness. Plus they also would have raided the best bits of earlier pagan festivals.
And so, Candlemas. This is 40 days after Christmas and traditionally involves the congregation donating their last remaining candle to the clergy. Or something. The date (2nd February) is very close to the cross-quarter day (somewhere around the 4th-6th) - the midpoint between the midwinter solstice and the spring equinox, and so it marks the end of the darkest quarter of the year.
I would certainly encourage everyone to have a big celebration at around this time of year. You could do something with candles, perhaps the first flowers of spring. Big fires. Welcome back the sunlight. Let the cold of winter know that it's end is nigh.
If you keep Christmastide going for the full twelve days until epiphany, then it's only another four weeks to wait until Candlemas.
Yes. Except that you can keep 'long Christmas' for 40 days till Candlemas; after which it isn't long till Lent. Do away with 'dry January' and all that.
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
All true. But on the other hand, despite what pro-Russians say, Ukraine is not a technologically backwards nation. In fact, a lot of the weapons, including high-tech ones, made by the USSR were made in Ukraine. Which is one reason Russia has problems building major warships.
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
The nuclear warhead programs were not in the Ukraine. A number of the missile programs were.
So the Ukrainians had possession of warheads they didn’t have the designs for. Or the specifications. Or the maintenance details.
Due to a lack of tritium production in Ukraine, all the warheads would become unusable in a year or 2. Tritium decays to Helium-3. Tritium is used in advanced nuclear weapons for 2 things. Boosting the primary (a bomb) and for the secondary (the h bomb bit). Helium-3 is a reaction poison - if even a small percentage of the tritium has turned into Helium-3, the primary will have nearly no yield if the gas is injected for boosting.
If you removed the tritium canisters completely, the primaries would yield perhaps 300 tons (TNT) equivalent. Which would be a very small bang.
And that would be dubious - the rest of the warhead needs maintenance. Soviet plutonium cores had corrosion problems due to crap nickel plating. Yes, really.
Ukraine would really have had to started a bomb program from scratch, using the material from the old Soviet warheads.
But, as you’ve noted, it isn’t that complicated, if you have an existing arms industry and decent engineering expertise.
I'm not accusing Malms of this, but there is a hefty undercurrent of downplaying Ukrainian technology and engineering prowess in much of the talk over Ukraine. I suspect much of this comes from Soviet times, where all the other constituent states were subservient to Russia. The achievements of those states were therefore 'Russian' in the eyes of Russians and their supporters around the world.
We still see it in this war, with people underplaying a lot of the technological stuff Ukraine is doing to keep Russia at bay, preferring to think only of the stuff Ukraine's been given.
This Russian superiority complex might explain the butthurt that Putin and many Russians feel when those 'lesser' states became more prosperous members of another, more open, political block.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
The answer is clear. Christmas starts on the evening of 24th December. Until then it is Advent. Preparations have to be made of course - I start thinking days before, and until then I ignore it.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
Interesting, thankyou!
But I think I shall use the Old Reliable. Fly south and east
And down we went. In the mountains, there you feel free. I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
When I was kid I adored the Moomin books. And I always envied and wanted to be Snufkin. To this day I wonder if Snufkin - the wandering poet type, pipe in mouth - turned me into the wanderer I am or whether Tove Jansson, in her genius, simply identified a type. The Snufkins of this world, foot-loose, seeking the warmth, who go south in winter
I suspect the latter. Tove J identified Snufkins, and there are a lot of us
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
All true. But on the other hand, despite what pro-Russians say, Ukraine is not a technologically backwards nation. In fact, a lot of the weapons, including high-tech ones, made by the USSR were made in Ukraine. Which is one reason Russia has problems building major warships.
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
The nuclear warhead programs were not in the Ukraine. A number of the missile programs were.
So the Ukrainians had possession of warheads they didn’t have the designs for. Or the specifications. Or the maintenance details.
Due to a lack of tritium production in Ukraine, all the warheads would become unusable in a year or 2. Tritium decays to Helium-3. Tritium is used in advanced nuclear weapons for 2 things. Boosting the primary (a bomb) and for the secondary (the h bomb bit). Helium-3 is a reaction poison - if even a small percentage of the tritium has turned into Helium-3, the primary will have nearly no yield if the gas is injected for boosting.
If you removed the tritium canisters completely, the primaries would yield perhaps 300 tons (TNT) equivalent. Which would be a very small bang.
And that would be dubious - the rest of the warhead needs maintenance. Soviet plutonium cores had corrosion problems due to crap nickel plating. Yes, really.
Ukraine would really have had to started a bomb program from scratch, using the material from the old Soviet warheads.
That doesn't actually really go against anything I said. The Ukrainians are not dumb; and all they needed was enough *doubt* about what they were doing.
After all, Israel in no way managed to have a nuclear weapons program that developed a nuclear weapon that they absolutely do not have.
Now Israel is getting tense, Needs one in self defence The lords our shepherd says the psalm But just in case, we’d better get a bomb.
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
And when that nice Mr Miliband gets his way, that sort of thing will happen more often. It's not going to need unimaginably more turbines and panels to get fairly regular times when production exceeds demand. And then consumption patterns will adapt to fit, because why wouldn't you?
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
All true. But on the other hand, despite what pro-Russians say, Ukraine is not a technologically backwards nation. In fact, a lot of the weapons, including high-tech ones, made by the USSR were made in Ukraine. Which is one reason Russia has problems building major warships.
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
The nuclear warhead programs were not in the Ukraine. A number of the missile programs were.
So the Ukrainians had possession of warheads they didn’t have the designs for. Or the specifications. Or the maintenance details.
Due to a lack of tritium production in Ukraine, all the warheads would become unusable in a year or 2. Tritium decays to Helium-3. Tritium is used in advanced nuclear weapons for 2 things. Boosting the primary (a bomb) and for the secondary (the h bomb bit). Helium-3 is a reaction poison - if even a small percentage of the tritium has turned into Helium-3, the primary will have nearly no yield if the gas is injected for boosting.
If you removed the tritium canisters completely, the primaries would yield perhaps 300 tons (TNT) equivalent. Which would be a very small bang.
And that would be dubious - the rest of the warhead needs maintenance. Soviet plutonium cores had corrosion problems due to crap nickel plating. Yes, really.
Ukraine would really have had to started a bomb program from scratch, using the material from the old Soviet warheads.
But, as you’ve noted, it isn’t that complicated, if you have an existing arms industry and decent engineering expertise.
I'm not accusing Malms of this, but there is a hefty undercurrent of downplaying Ukrainian technology and engineering prowess in much of the talk over Ukraine. I suspect much of this comes from Soviet times, where all the other constituent states were subservient to Russia. The achievements of those states were therefore 'Russian' in the eyes of Russians and their supporters around the world.
We still see it in this war, with people underplaying a lot of the technological stuff Ukraine is doing to keep Russia at bay, preferring to think only of the stuff Ukraine's been given.
This Russian superiority complex might explain the butthurt that Putin and many Russians feel when those 'lesser' states became more prosperous members of another, more open, political block.
He was just (correctly, I think) pointing out that hanging onto and maintaining the Soviet warheads was likely beyond them at the time. Particularly given the then political constraints. Building new, simpler plutonium bombs would be quite another matter now.
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
I'm surprised they're doing that at that time on Christmas Day, since IIRC that's a very high demand period.
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
And such legal actions have occurred in the context of Shipman and others. Not to mention the Liverpool Pathway.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
Not really. It's a recognised bit of medical practice to treat pain or respiratory distress with diamorphine, though obviously should be discussed with patient and relatives.
Shipman, Gosport etc are very different as not in discussion with patient or family.
Probably the most blatant British Euthanasia was the death of Lilian Boyes at the hands of Dr Nigel Cox* in 1991. He was convicted of attempted murder, given a suspended sentance and let off by the GMC. He returned to work at the same hospital shortly after.
*lovely man and very caring. I looked after his patients as a junior doctor, possibly including Mrs Boyes.
Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that Cox was a very caring man. From the article I wouldn't call it "blatant Euthanasia". It was compassionate and desired by the patient and her family. It was a brave thing he did, given the legal peril.
That is why we need the assisted dying bill to clarify and legitimise this area. Otherwise it is grey and unmonitored.
It was blatant euthanasia, and incidentally beyond the proposed bill in my understanding.
I think that bureaucratising End of Life Care into legalistic forms is not really a good thing. These events generally happen quickly, often over a few days. It should just have good practice guidelines, nothing more.
Have you read the Wikipedia article? Can you place yourself in his position and feel the compassion? Or not?
I know the story very well, having worked with Dr Cox. His actions were driven by compassion but were also blatant euthanasia. That is what euthanasia means.
I don't think under the proposed law that Doctors are to administer the fatal agent.
Merkel says that allowing Ukraine to join NATO would have compromised NATO's security and she hoped it would have a relationship like Finland.
On that she was probably right, it would have seen Putin invade Ukraine much earlier
In the same way that Russia invaded the Baltic States to prevent them from joining NATO?
We have a natural experiment here. Russia have not yet invaded a NATO member, but they have invaded several countries who are not NATO members.
The conclusion to draw is pretty obvious. If Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008 then Russia would not have invaded.
No doubt it is because I am not a politician that it seemed to me obvious that the NATO countries should have said, as Russia was apparently preparing to invade, that an attack on Ukraine would be treated as an attack on NATO, giving the Russians the chance to decide it had just been military exercises.
Yes. I have often thought that if the much-praised British flights carrying NLAW supplies had actually transported units of British and American troops to Kyiv, with the clear signal that more would follow, that Russia would likely have stepped away from the invasion.
This whole damned mess could have been avoided several times over if at various points the West hadn't allowed themselves to be intimidated by what they worked Russia would do in response. That's the most important lesson we need to learn.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
The answer is clear. Christmas starts on the evening of 24th December. Until then it is Advent. Preparations have to be made of course - I start thinking days before, and until then I ignore it.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
Interesting, thankyou!
But I think I shall use the Old Reliable. Fly south and east
And down we went. In the mountains, there you feel free. I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
When I was kid I adored the Moomin books. And I always envied and wanted to be Snufkin. To this day I wonder if Snufkin - the wandering poet type, pipe in mouth - turned me into the wanderer I am or whether Tove Jansson, in her genius, simply identified a type. The Snufkins of this world, foot-loose, seeking the warmth, who go south in winter
I suspect the latter. Tove J identified Snufkins, and there are a lot of us
I remember a whole episode of the Moomins where Moomin sat on a bridge waiting for Snuffkin to return. Which he eventually did to Moomin’s great excitement. Snuffkin was pleased to see him too but there was a clear difference my 4 year old picked up on pronouncing it sad that Moomin clearly liked Snuffkin so much my than the reverse. There was more in those stories than appeared on the surface.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
The answer is clear. Christmas starts on the evening of 24th December. Until then it is Advent. Preparations have to be made of course - I start thinking days before, and until then I ignore it.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
Interesting, thankyou!
But I think I shall use the Old Reliable. Fly south and east
And down we went. In the mountains, there you feel free. I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
When I was kid I adored the Moomin books. And I always envied and wanted to be Snufkin. To this day I wonder if Snufkin - the wandering poet type, pipe in mouth - turned me into the wanderer I am or whether Tove Jansson, in her genius, simply identified a type. The Snufkins of this world, foot-loose, seeking the warmth, who go south in winter
I suspect the latter. Tove J identified Snufkins, and there are a lot of us
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
And when that nice Mr Miliband gets his way, that sort of thing will happen more often. It's not going to need unimaginably more turbines and panels to get fairly regular times when production exceeds demand. And then consumption patterns will adapt to fit, because why wouldn't you?
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
Oh yes; there's going to be some really interesting stuff around real time electricity pricing and provision. It won't be long before it becomes economic to install batteries at home so as to take advantage of pricing disparities.
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
And when that nice Mr Miliband gets his way, that sort of thing will happen more often. It's not going to need unimaginably more turbines and panels to get fairly regular times when production exceeds demand. And then consumption patterns will adapt to fit, because why wouldn't you?
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
To be fair it does require quite drastic reduction of electricity use between 4pm and 7pm to qualify
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
And such legal actions have occurred in the context of Shipman and others. Not to mention the Liverpool Pathway.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
Not really. It's a recognised bit of medical practice to treat pain or respiratory distress with diamorphine, though obviously should be discussed with patient and relatives.
Shipman, Gosport etc are very different as not in discussion with patient or family.
Probably the most blatant British Euthanasia was the death of Lilian Boyes at the hands of Dr Nigel Cox* in 1991. He was convicted of attempted murder, given a suspended sentance and let off by the GMC. He returned to work at the same hospital shortly after.
*lovely man and very caring. I looked after his patients as a junior doctor, possibly including Mrs Boyes.
Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that Cox was a very caring man. From the article I wouldn't call it "blatant Euthanasia". It was compassionate and desired by the patient and her family. It was a brave thing he did, given the legal peril.
That is why we need the assisted dying bill to clarify and legitimise this area. Otherwise it is grey and unmonitored.
It was blatant euthanasia, and incidentally beyond the proposed bill in my understanding.
I think that bureaucratising End of Life Care into legalistic forms is not really a good thing. These events generally happen quickly, often over a few days. It should just have good practice guidelines, nothing more.
Have you read the Wikipedia article? Can you place yourself in his position and feel the compassion? Or not?
You said he was a caring man. Does this mean that you approve of what he did even though it was "blatant" euthanasia. If so, then surely he needed legal protection? If this bill doesn't cover what he did, surely it needs to be extended in scope? Or are you saying we should just leave it to medics to turn a blind eye - which they didn't do in Cox's case.
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
And such legal actions have occurred in the context of Shipman and others. Not to mention the Liverpool Pathway.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
Not really. It's a recognised bit of medical practice to treat pain or respiratory distress with diamorphine, though obviously should be discussed with patient and relatives.
Shipman, Gosport etc are very different as not in discussion with patient or family.
Probably the most blatant British Euthanasia was the death of Lilian Boyes at the hands of Dr Nigel Cox* in 1991. He was convicted of attempted murder, given a suspended sentance and let off by the GMC. He returned to work at the same hospital shortly after.
*lovely man and very caring. I looked after his patients as a junior doctor, possibly including Mrs Boyes.
Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that Cox was a very caring man. From the article I wouldn't call it "blatant Euthanasia". It was compassionate and desired by the patient and her family. It was a brave thing he did, given the legal peril.
That is why we need the assisted dying bill to clarify and legitimise this area. Otherwise it is grey and unmonitored.
It was blatant euthanasia, and incidentally beyond the proposed bill in my understanding.
I think that bureaucratising End of Life Care into legalistic forms is not really a good thing. These events generally happen quickly, often over a few days. It should just have good practice guidelines, nothing more.
Have you read the Wikipedia article? Can you place yourself in his position and feel the compassion? Or not?
I know the story very well, having worked with Dr Cox. His actions were driven by compassion but were also blatant euthanasia. That is what euthanasia means.
I don't think under the proposed law that Doctors are to administer the fatal agent.
The point of the euthanasia bill, though, is that relying on Dr Coxes is basically a lottery for terminal patients in severe pain.
It’s a hard problem, but I think your solution is something of an easy, and somewhat unconvincing out. That’s not a criticism of you; it’s just that I’ve encountered far too many doctors who are lacking in that compassion.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
The answer is clear. Christmas starts on the evening of 24th December. Until then it is Advent. Preparations have to be made of course - I start thinking days before, and until then I ignore it.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
Interesting, thankyou!
But I think I shall use the Old Reliable. Fly south and east
And down we went. In the mountains, there you feel free. I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
When I was kid I adored the Moomin books. And I always envied and wanted to be Snufkin. To this day I wonder if Snufkin - the wandering poet type, pipe in mouth - turned me into the wanderer I am or whether Tove Jansson, in her genius, simply identified a type. The Snufkins of this world, foot-loose, seeking the warmth, who go south in winter
I suspect the latter. Tove J identified Snufkins, and there are a lot of us
I remember a whole episode of the Moomins where Moomin sat on a bridge waiting for Snuffkin to return. Which he eventually did to Moomin’s great excitement. Snuffkin was pleased to see him too but there was a clear difference my 4 year old picked up on pronouncing it sad that Moomin clearly liked Snuffkin so much my than the reverse. There was more in those stories than appeared on the surface.
Tove Jansson was a weird genius. Maybe all geniuses are weird
Moominland Midwinter remains one of my favourite books of all time. The idea of waking up in a silenced world, your own world yet with your family asleep all around you, and everything is simultaneously more poetic, sad, unnerving, and hauntingly beautiful, and full of new and exotic creatures
I am pretty sure that DID drive my lust for travel. To experience new, poetic worlds
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
And when that nice Mr Miliband gets his way, that sort of thing will happen more often. It's not going to need unimaginably more turbines and panels to get fairly regular times when production exceeds demand. And then consumption patterns will adapt to fit, because why wouldn't you?
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
To be fair it does require quite drastic reduction of electricity use between 4pm and 7pm to qualify
My wife has suggested eating dinner in the middle of the day, so that would mean not having so much electricity usage in the evening, when we'd have a lighter repast. I believe this was normal in England a few centuries ago, and when I was a child visiting grandparents in Vienna, I understood that it was the normal way of things there.
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
And when that nice Mr Miliband gets his way, that sort of thing will happen more often. It's not going to need unimaginably more turbines and panels to get fairly regular times when production exceeds demand. And then consumption patterns will adapt to fit, because why wouldn't you?
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
Spot price of electricity was negative for a few hours last night. Grid would have paid you to store some of it.
(I'm interested by the floor in gas generation of about 4GW, even when we have excess wind and are exporting to Europe. Anyone know why? I imagine it's something simple like it's difficult to fully shut down a gas power station)
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
All true. But on the other hand, despite what pro-Russians say, Ukraine is not a technologically backwards nation. In fact, a lot of the weapons, including high-tech ones, made by the USSR were made in Ukraine. Which is one reason Russia has problems building major warships.
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
The nuclear warhead programs were not in the Ukraine. A number of the missile programs were.
So the Ukrainians had possession of warheads they didn’t have the designs for. Or the specifications. Or the maintenance details.
Due to a lack of tritium production in Ukraine, all the warheads would become unusable in a year or 2. Tritium decays to Helium-3. Tritium is used in advanced nuclear weapons for 2 things. Boosting the primary (a bomb) and for the secondary (the h bomb bit). Helium-3 is a reaction poison - if even a small percentage of the tritium has turned into Helium-3, the primary will have nearly no yield if the gas is injected for boosting.
If you removed the tritium canisters completely, the primaries would yield perhaps 300 tons (TNT) equivalent. Which would be a very small bang.
And that would be dubious - the rest of the warhead needs maintenance. Soviet plutonium cores had corrosion problems due to crap nickel plating. Yes, really.
Ukraine would really have had to started a bomb program from scratch, using the material from the old Soviet warheads.
That doesn't actually really go against anything I said. The Ukrainians are not dumb; and all they needed was enough *doubt* about what they were doing.
After all, Israel in no way managed to have a nuclear weapons program that developed a nuclear weapon that they absolutely do not have.
The Israelis engineered the nuclear weapons they don't have. Complete with the design and research facilities they don't have.
The Ukrainians would have had to have created this, otherwise they would have been the proud owners of some paperweights. At the time the Ukrainian economy was in the toilet. And after Chernobyl, enthusiasm for nuclear stuff wasn't exactly high.
Obviously the petition is going nowhere, but I think it does highlight a fundamental truth for why we are seeing the plummet in Labour's support and in Starmers personal ratings - which is that on taking office Labour have been very cynically doing things for which they have no mandate.
The point was raised by Sir John Curtice during the election that Labour would have been better telling people what they planned to do rather than blatantly being dishonest.
Yes, they may only have formed a government with a majority of 50 rather than 170 but they would have been in a much better position now to actually implement the policies they are implementing.
This very much seems to be shaping up to be a one term government and most of that is because Labour wasn't transparent before and during the election.
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
And such legal actions have occurred in the context of Shipman and others. Not to mention the Liverpool Pathway.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
Not really. It's a recognised bit of medical practice to treat pain or respiratory distress with diamorphine, though obviously should be discussed with patient and relatives.
Shipman, Gosport etc are very different as not in discussion with patient or family.
Probably the most blatant British Euthanasia was the death of Lilian Boyes at the hands of Dr Nigel Cox* in 1991. He was convicted of attempted murder, given a suspended sentance and let off by the GMC. He returned to work at the same hospital shortly after.
*lovely man and very caring. I looked after his patients as a junior doctor, possibly including Mrs Boyes.
Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that Cox was a very caring man. From the article I wouldn't call it "blatant Euthanasia". It was compassionate and desired by the patient and her family. It was a brave thing he did, given the legal peril.
That is why we need the assisted dying bill to clarify and legitimise this area. Otherwise it is grey and unmonitored.
It was blatant euthanasia, and incidentally beyond the proposed bill in my understanding.
I think that bureaucratising End of Life Care into legalistic forms is not really a good thing. These events generally happen quickly, often over a few days. It should just have good practice guidelines, nothing more.
Have you read the Wikipedia article? Can you place yourself in his position and feel the compassion? Or not?
I know the story very well, having worked with Dr Cox. His actions were driven by compassion but were also blatant euthanasia. That is what euthanasia means.
I don't think under the proposed law that Doctors are to administer the fatal agent.
The point of the euthanasia bill, though, is that relying on Dr Coxes is basically a lottery for terminal patients in severe pain.
It’s a hard problem, but I think your solution is something of an easy, and somewhat unconvincing out. That’s not a criticism of you; it’s just that I’ve encountered far too many doctors who are lacking in that compassion.
Or have the compassion but other medics don't, and snitch on them, as they did with Cox.
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
And when that nice Mr Miliband gets his way, that sort of thing will happen more often. It's not going to need unimaginably more turbines and panels to get fairly regular times when production exceeds demand. And then consumption patterns will adapt to fit, because why wouldn't you?
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
Spot price of electricity was negative for a few hours last night. Grid would have paid you to store some of it.
(I'm interested by the floor in gas generation of about 4GW, even when we have excess wind and are exporting to Europe. Anyone know why? I imagine it's something simple like it's difficult to fully shut down a gas power station)
Local pricing would sort that very quickly. More quickly than we can fully upgrade the grid.
It is with regret that I need to inform you all that my wife has just put up some Christmas lights outside our house.
And you permit this?
Good, we are supposed to keep the spirit of Christmas with us all year round.
It's exactly a month before Chrimbo. In the absence of a UK Thanksgiving, we just have to accept we need Christmas to last us through to Christmas, from about mid-November. Bravo, Mrs Rentool
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
The answer is clear. Christmas starts on the evening of 24th December. Until then it is Advent. Preparations have to be made of course - I start thinking days before, and until then I ignore it.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
Interesting, thankyou!
But I think I shall use the Old Reliable. Fly south and east
And down we went. In the mountains, there you feel free. I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
When I was kid I adored the Moomin books. And I always envied and wanted to be Snufkin. To this day I wonder if Snufkin - the wandering poet type, pipe in mouth - turned me into the wanderer I am or whether Tove Jansson, in her genius, simply identified a type. The Snufkins of this world, foot-loose, seeking the warmth, who go south in winter
I suspect the latter. Tove J identified Snufkins, and there are a lot of us
On assisted dying, I don't want anyone to die in pain. But as per Foxy's comment that the NHS can offer 'potentially dangerous' levels of pain medication at the end of life, I don't see why dying in pain would be necessary. Why can't we just agree that nobody suffers at the end unless that's what they want? That's really as far as I think I want the NHS to go. And I don't really know, or see why Dame Diana Rigg apparently died in pain, or why Esther Rantzen thinks she might.
Because - AIUI - doctors are terrified of legal action claiming they accelerated death with diamorphine etc
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
And such legal actions have occurred in the context of Shipman and others. Not to mention the Liverpool Pathway.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
Not really. It's a recognised bit of medical practice to treat pain or respiratory distress with diamorphine, though obviously should be discussed with patient and relatives.
Shipman, Gosport etc are very different as not in discussion with patient or family.
Probably the most blatant British Euthanasia was the death of Lilian Boyes at the hands of Dr Nigel Cox* in 1991. He was convicted of attempted murder, given a suspended sentance and let off by the GMC. He returned to work at the same hospital shortly after.
*lovely man and very caring. I looked after his patients as a junior doctor, possibly including Mrs Boyes.
Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that Cox was a very caring man. From the article I wouldn't call it "blatant Euthanasia". It was compassionate and desired by the patient and her family. It was a brave thing he did, given the legal peril.
That is why we need the assisted dying bill to clarify and legitimise this area. Otherwise it is grey and unmonitored.
It was blatant euthanasia, and incidentally beyond the proposed bill in my understanding.
I think that bureaucratising End of Life Care into legalistic forms is not really a good thing. These events generally happen quickly, often over a few days. It should just have good practice guidelines, nothing more.
Have you read the Wikipedia article? Can you place yourself in his position and feel the compassion? Or not?
I know the story very well, having worked with Dr Cox. His actions were driven by compassion but were also blatant euthanasia. That is what euthanasia means.
I don't think under the proposed law that Doctors are to administer the fatal agent.
The point of the euthanasia bill, though, is that relying on Dr Coxes is basically a lottery for terminal patients in severe pain.
It’s a hard problem, but I think your solution is something of an easy, and somewhat unconvincing out. That’s not a criticism of you; it’s just that I’ve encountered far too many doctors who are lacking in that compassion.
No, I support the bill, just not sure on the legalistic bit. In part it is practical as our judges are busy people. If they weigh evidence carefully it takes time, and often there isn't much time, or if alternatively they rubber stamp decisions taken elsewhere. I don't think we need to nationalise death.
I am marginally in favour of the Bill despite my concerns.
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
And when that nice Mr Miliband gets his way, that sort of thing will happen more often. It's not going to need unimaginably more turbines and panels to get fairly regular times when production exceeds demand. And then consumption patterns will adapt to fit, because why wouldn't you?
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
To be fair it does require quite drastic reduction of electricity use between 4pm and 7pm to qualify
My wife has suggested eating dinner in the middle of the day, so that would mean not having so much electricity usage in the evening, when we'd have a lighter repast. I believe this was normal in England a few centuries ago, and when I was a child visiting grandparents in Vienna, I understood that it was the normal way of things there.
Still the custom in my family till my parents passed on, albeit a little later lunch than usual.
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
All true. But on the other hand, despite what pro-Russians say, Ukraine is not a technologically backwards nation. In fact, a lot of the weapons, including high-tech ones, made by the USSR were made in Ukraine. Which is one reason Russia has problems building major warships.
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
The nuclear warhead programs were not in the Ukraine. A number of the missile programs were.
So the Ukrainians had possession of warheads they didn’t have the designs for. Or the specifications. Or the maintenance details.
Due to a lack of tritium production in Ukraine, all the warheads would become unusable in a year or 2. Tritium decays to Helium-3. Tritium is used in advanced nuclear weapons for 2 things. Boosting the primary (a bomb) and for the secondary (the h bomb bit). Helium-3 is a reaction poison - if even a small percentage of the tritium has turned into Helium-3, the primary will have nearly no yield if the gas is injected for boosting.
If you removed the tritium canisters completely, the primaries would yield perhaps 300 tons (TNT) equivalent. Which would be a very small bang.
And that would be dubious - the rest of the warhead needs maintenance. Soviet plutonium cores had corrosion problems due to crap nickel plating. Yes, really.
Ukraine would really have had to started a bomb program from scratch, using the material from the old Soviet warheads.
But, as you’ve noted, it isn’t that complicated, if you have an existing arms industry and decent engineering expertise.
I'm not accusing Malms of this, but there is a hefty undercurrent of downplaying Ukrainian technology and engineering prowess in much of the talk over Ukraine. I suspect much of this comes from Soviet times, where all the other constituent states were subservient to Russia. The achievements of those states were therefore 'Russian' in the eyes of Russians and their supporters around the world.
We still see it in this war, with people underplaying a lot of the technological stuff Ukraine is doing to keep Russia at bay, preferring to think only of the stuff Ukraine's been given.
This Russian superiority complex might explain the butthurt that Putin and many Russians feel when those 'lesser' states became more prosperous members of another, more open, political block.
He was just (correctly, I think) pointing out that hanging onto and maintaining the Soviet warheads was likely beyond them at the time. Particularly given the then political constraints. Building new, simpler plutonium bombs would be quite another matter now.
We're talking about the technical side of it, not the political. And I disagree that the technical side would have been beyond Ukraine, even setting aside Malms' comments. Pakistan built a nuclear weapons program from scratch to weapons in ?25? years. Ukraine had *far* more going for it - including existent although degrading weapons.
Featured, key, farm protester last week moaning about his acres in scotland turns out to be retired stock broker and former chair of LSE says Torsten Bell:
He's not a tenth generation farmer who has worked all his life from day to dusk scraping a living off the unyielding earth, he's a retired stockbroker who may well have always wanted to have a farm as a retirement hobby but is also trying to avoid IHT.
Perhaps this is generation one of what would go one to be ten?
Obviously the petition is going nowhere, but I think it does highlight a fundamental truth for why we are seeing the plummet in Labour's support and in Starmers personal rating, which is that on taking office Labour have been very cynically doing things that for which they have no mandate.
The point was raised by Sir John Curtice during the election that Labour would have been better telling people what they planned to do rather than blatantly being dishonest.
Yes, they may only have formed a government with a majority of 50 rather than 170 but they would have been in a much better position not to actually implement the policies they are implementing.
I agree. And fundamentally you cannot have a functioning democracy without a sufficient level of honesty.
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
I'm surprised they're doing that at that time on Christmas Day, since IIRC that's a very high demand period.
The grid trackers have that whole week pretty low, which surprised me as well. I guess there's a lot of industry that just shuts down, and the coaggulation of families means that a fair number of homes are left dark on the day.
Comments
9.7 million voted Labour in July so it needs 10 million to sign the current petition for it to be relevant
https://www.hallmarkchannel.com/christmas/movie-guide-countdown-to-christmas-2024
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/25/kamala-harris-advisers-options-open-00191393
Oh, the majority are just drek, and they clearly ran out of ideas a long time ago and scrape the barrel for new thoughts, but about 1 in 5 are cheesily good, and there can be fun in identifying the 10-15% which are actually decent, by virtue of slightly better acting/writing than the rest on the conveyor built. A good earner as well for attractive actresses in their late 30s/early 40s who make up the majority of leads.
I like to watch out for which ones were obviously filmed in mid july, versus ones which had a bit more money and can film in winter, or pay for a snow machine.
It has a snow scene...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14121003/Tom-Watson-job-palantir-nhs-labour-data.html
Nixon lost in 1960 but only ran again in 1968, 8 years later. Trump lost in 2020 but of course he had already proved he could win a presidential election in 2016. Harris says she might run for California governor next time which may be viable but the Democrats will want a less woke and less coastal candidate from the rustbelt or Midwest who is probably a white male like Shapiro or Buttigieg to take on VP Vance in 2028.
Otherwise she could hope for a senior Cabinet role in a future Democrat President's administration at best, as 2004 loser John Kerry became Obama's Secretary of State for example
A credible security guarantee to Ukraine short of NATO membership will inevitably involve stationing European NATO troops on Ukrainian soil.
https://x.com/APHClarkson/status/1861061953038307484
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright.
As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Kamala 226
As I said before, the real problem is the total absence of ANY fun between New Year and March (at the earliest). We desperately need a European-style Carnival. FFS just invent it from scratch. Anything
At 19, I was offered the job in return for unlimited food and drink. As the weeks passed, things got increasingly sinister. It ended with me spending a night in jail
Alasdair Gill" (£)
https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/i-worked-in-a-bar-in-laos-i-know-what-goes-into-those-lethal-drinks-0prs7628d
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
Is it Christmas? No
At this point they are just lights...
https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/president
Couple meet under contrived circumstances. Initially they can't stand each other. But by Christmas Day they have fallen in love.
In addition to the main pair, other compulsory characters include:
Her sensible friend.
The gay couple running a deli/coffee shop/gift shop/florist.
A set of parents who always host the perfect Christmas.
Sometimes there is also her ex, who is a bit of a twat.
The best posts are those where the pesky shareholders or politicians are least likely to annoy. The Post Office was perfect - 100% government owned. 0% actual oversight.
I wanted the large version but Mrs Eek bought this without checking with me first
@Foxy can surely illuminate this
It's a really fine line to tread. I essentially agree with you, indeed I likely agree with the principle of Assisted Dying. But something in the Bill makes me deeply queasy, and those adverts, UGH
Vote this Bill down, but try again with all parties behind it. We can do better. And the creeps behind those ads need to be removed from the conversation. They remind me of the feminists in America who are so polarised by the abortion debate they start to believe abortion is itself a brilliant thing, and there should be MORE abortions!
Both Christmas classics.
Which is the reason that a proper ethical & legal structure needs to be created.
I do not think, however, that this is the right one.
We're post-Halloween so its entirely acceptable to have lights on and songs playing.
We have a natural experiment here. Russia have not yet invaded a NATO member, but they have invaded several countries who are not NATO members.
The conclusion to draw is pretty obvious. If Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008 then Russia would not have invaded.
Which previously didn’t exist.
"No more petitions (except this petition)"
Next morning she ate two breakfasts and lived another 10 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lucy's_Day
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
Georgia, with occupied South Ossetia and Abkhazia, was a more difficult situation.
Shipman, Gosport etc are very different as not in discussion with patient or family.
Probably the most blatant British Euthanasia was the death of Lilian Boyes at the hands of Dr Nigel Cox* in 1991. He was convicted of attempted murder, given a suspended sentance and let off by the GMC. He returned to work at the same hospital shortly after.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Cox_(doctor)
*lovely man and very caring. I looked after his patients as a junior doctor, possibly including Mrs Boyes.
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1861072247655485581
They completely discontinued the 300 model after combat experience in Ukraine.
The important bit is next. Christmas in its purest form lasts 12 days until 6th January - which is great as many people are off for some of that time. But the 'long Christmas' season lasts from Christmas Eve until 2nd February - Candlemas. 40 days.
This has important implications: Firstly all the 'dry January' stuff can be placed in the bin. Keep all that for Lent. Secondly that long period is the time to celebrate the season because everyone's diary is relatively empty as they were overfull and stressed from the middle of November to 24th December. So they will be ready for some sort of gathering.
This rescues January, in a wonderfully relaxed way, to be unique instead of horrible. Try it. It works.
For a January celebration I am a big fan of Burns Night and always mark it with friends and Scottish poetry. We often also have Mc Gonnegals "Tay Bridge Disaster" to counterpoint the brilliant Scottish national bard.
So the Ukrainians had possession of warheads they didn’t have the designs for. Or the specifications. Or the maintenance details.
Due to a lack of tritium production in Ukraine, all the warheads would become unusable in a year or 2. Tritium decays to Helium-3. Tritium is used in advanced nuclear weapons for 2 things. Boosting the primary (a bomb) and for the secondary (the h bomb bit). Helium-3 is a reaction poison - if even a small percentage of the tritium has turned into Helium-3, the primary will have nearly no yield if the gas is injected for boosting.
If you removed the tritium canisters completely, the primaries would yield perhaps 300 tons (TNT) equivalent. Which would be a very small bang.
This is what a real, actual 300 ton yield looks like - https://youtu.be/eiM-RzPHyGs?t=225&si=_whuO2Tbttvx--rr
And that would be dubious - the rest of the warhead needs maintenance. Soviet plutonium cores had corrosion problems due to crap nickel plating. Yes, really.
Ukraine would really have had to started a bomb program from scratch, using the material from the old Soviet warheads.
And so, Candlemas. This is 40 days after Christmas and traditionally involves the congregation donating their last remaining candle to the clergy. Or something. The date (2nd February) is very close to the cross-quarter day (somewhere around the 4th-6th) - the midpoint between the midwinter solstice and the spring equinox, and so it marks the end of the darkest quarter of the year.
I would certainly encourage everyone to have a big celebration at around this time of year. You could do something with candles, perhaps the first flowers of spring. Big fires. Welcome back the sunlight. Let the cold of winter know that it's end is nigh.
If you keep Christmastide going for the full twelve days until epiphany, then it's only another four weeks to wait until Candlemas.
That is why we need the assisted dying bill to clarify and legitimise this area. Otherwise it is grey and unmonitored.
Interesting, thankyou!
But I think I shall use the Old Reliable. Fly south and east
I think that bureaucratising End of Life Care into legalistic forms is not really a good thing. These events generally happen quickly, often over a few days. It should just have good practice guidelines, nothing more.
After all, Israel in no way managed to have a nuclear weapons program that developed a nuclear weapon that they absolutely do not have.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
Won’t get a better tip than that.
We still see it in this war, with people underplaying a lot of the technological stuff Ukraine is doing to keep Russia at bay, preferring to think only of the stuff Ukraine's been given.
This Russian superiority complex might explain the butthurt that Putin and many Russians feel when those 'lesser' states became more prosperous members of another, more open, political block.
I suspect the latter. Tove J identified Snufkins, and there are a lot of us
Needs one in self defence
The lords our shepherd says the psalm
But just in case, we’d better get a bomb.
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
Building new, simpler plutonium bombs would be quite another matter now.
I don't think under the proposed law that Doctors are to administer the fatal agent.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/nov/25/humbug-vandal-smashes-gravestone-of-ebenezer-scrooge
This whole damned mess could have been avoided several times over if at various points the West hadn't allowed themselves to be intimidated by what they worked Russia would do in response. That's the most important lesson we need to learn.
Which he eventually did to Moomin’s great excitement. Snuffkin was pleased to see him too but there was a clear difference my 4 year old picked up on pronouncing it sad that Moomin clearly liked Snuffkin so much my than the reverse.
There was more in those stories than appeared on the surface.
You said he was a caring man. Does this mean that you approve of what he did even though it was "blatant" euthanasia. If so, then surely he needed legal protection?
If this bill doesn't cover what he did, surely it needs to be extended in scope?
Or are you saying we should just leave it to medics to turn a blind eye - which they didn't do in Cox's case.
I don't understand your position on this.
It’s a hard problem, but I think your solution is something of an easy, and somewhat unconvincing out. That’s not a criticism of you; it’s just that I’ve encountered far too many doctors who are lacking in that compassion.
Moominland Midwinter remains one of my favourite books of all time. The idea of waking up in a silenced world, your own world yet with your family asleep all around you, and everything is simultaneously more poetic, sad, unnerving, and hauntingly beautiful, and full of new and exotic creatures
I am pretty sure that DID drive my lust for travel. To experience new, poetic worlds
(I'm interested by the floor in gas generation of about 4GW, even when we have excess wind and are exporting to Europe. Anyone know why? I imagine it's something simple like it's difficult to fully shut down a gas power station)
The Ukrainians would have had to have created this, otherwise they would have been the proud owners of some paperweights. At the time the Ukrainian economy was in the toilet. And after Chernobyl, enthusiasm for nuclear stuff wasn't exactly high.
The point was raised by Sir John Curtice during the election that Labour would have been better telling people what they planned to do rather than blatantly being dishonest.
Yes, they may only have formed a government with a majority of 50 rather than 170 but they would have been in a much better position now to actually implement the policies they are implementing.
This very much seems to be shaping up to be a one term government and most of that is because Labour wasn't transparent before and during the election.
More quickly than we can fully upgrade the grid.
I am marginally in favour of the Bill despite my concerns.