I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
What about flattening Tehran, Gaza style?
How many people across the Middle East is Bibi allowed to kill since 0ctober 7th 2023? How many deaths has he sanctioned since he became Prime Minister? He will go down in history and one of the World's greatest monsters.
Now before you charge me with anti-Semitism, my concern is for Netanyahu's morality. I am not questioning Judaism or the right for Israel to exist.
So what you are basically saying is How many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died?
I am sure Netanyahu has no maximum number for the collateral death rate for Arabs and Persians. Quite possibly, the more the merrier.
I get that your think you're being clever with this asinine question but it has never been a part of just war theory to place an upper limit on casualties, and never will be.
What was the upper limit of Axis deaths for Churchill?
What was the upper limit of Japanese deaths for Truman and Roosevelt?
What was the upper limit of enemy deaths for Lloyd George and Asquith?
What was the upper limit of Confederate deaths for Lincoln?
The enemy in war stops dying when they surrender unconditionally. There is no numerical limit until then, never has been, never will be, so stop being so asinine.
The US did consider the scale of possible Japanese casualties when considering invading in 1945 and in the choice to drop the atom bomb. The world is less simple than you sometimes paint it.
The clips I've seen of the orange Taco's birthday parade make it seem utterly pathetic.
Are there any decent ones? Clips where the US military actually looks competent?
What an utterly bizarre take. If you are seriously judging the US military’s competence on their ability to march/ wear wonderful uniforms etc such as at the trooping of the colour then please, please agree you will never accept being Minister of Defence.
(Snip)
What do you think the purpose of the parade was? Was it a jolly carnival, or was it supposed to show the current American forces at their best to American and the world? If the former, fair enough. If the latter, then it was an epic fail. And will have been seen as such in every country that can actually organise parades. The reenactors were far better.
As it happens, I agree that the US military can be incredibly competent. This parade did not show any of that competence; in fact, it showed incompetence. Which was the point of my comment.
I always thought of Trump as a showman. That was not a show of martial power; it was a comedy.
I think, based on the soldiers waving from vehicles to the re-enactment groups wearing revolutionary war, civil war and world war 2 outfits marching in it is was a jolly. If the US military wanted to show their forces at their best then it wouldn’t have been marching, it’s not really their strong suit.
Then it's not a military parade, is it? It's a carnival or fair. And many parades held by various countries have more than passing nods to their country's great martial past - just look at the T-34s at previous Russian parades.
But this was sold as a parade, and other countries will be laughing at the US army's 'display'.
I’m guessing you will be taking issue with Pride Parades not being called Parades as insufficiently organised and dramatic? “Parade” is not a technical word that requires certain standards or rules. It can be a celebratory procession or a hyper-organised Soviet style May-Day power flex.
The trooping of the colour is a parade, it’s got very little hardware compared to the Chinese military parades. Which isn’t a parade in your book?
The Lake Parade in Geneva has absolutely zero military kit and zero discipline, it’s a parade.
The clips I've seen of the orange Taco's birthday parade make it seem utterly pathetic.
Are there any decent ones? Clips where the US military actually looks competent?
What an utterly bizarre take. If you are seriously judging the US military’s competence on their ability to march/ wear wonderful uniforms etc such as at the trooping of the colour then please, please agree you will never accept being Minister of Defence.
(Snip)
What do you think the purpose of the parade was? Was it a jolly carnival, or was it supposed to show the current American forces at their best to American and the world? If the former, fair enough. If the latter, then it was an epic fail. And will have been seen as such in every country that can actually organise parades. The reenactors were far better.
As it happens, I agree that the US military can be incredibly competent. This parade did not show any of that competence; in fact, it showed incompetence. Which was the point of my comment.
I always thought of Trump as a showman. That was not a show of martial power; it was a comedy.
If they wanted marching, where was the 3rd Infantry Regiment? They are trained for parades and do all the elaborate drill stuff.
The clips I've seen of the orange Taco's birthday parade make it seem utterly pathetic.
Are there any decent ones? Clips where the US military actually looks competent?
What an utterly bizarre take. If you are seriously judging the US military’s competence on their ability to march/ wear wonderful uniforms etc such as at the trooping of the colour then please, please agree you will never accept being Minister of Defence.
(Snip)
What do you think the purpose of the parade was? Was it a jolly carnival, or was it supposed to show the current American forces at their best to American and the world? If the former, fair enough. If the latter, then it was an epic fail. And will have been seen as such in every country that can actually organise parades. The reenactors were far better.
As it happens, I agree that the US military can be incredibly competent. This parade did not show any of that competence; in fact, it showed incompetence. Which was the point of my comment.
I always thought of Trump as a showman. That was not a show of martial power; it was a comedy.
I think, based on the soldiers waving from vehicles to the re-enactment groups wearing revolutionary war, civil war and world war 2 outfits marching in it is was a jolly. If the US military wanted to show their forces at their best then it wouldn’t have been marching, it’s not really their strong suit.
Then it's not a military parade, is it? It's a carnival or fair. And many parades held by various countries have more than passing nods to their country's great martial past - just look at the T-34s at previous Russian parades.
But this was sold as a parade, and other countries will be laughing at the US army's 'display'.
I’m guessing you will be taking issue with Pride Parades not being called Parades as insufficiently organised and dramatic? “Parade” is not a technical word that requires certain standards or rules. It can be a celebratory procession or a hyper-organised Soviet style May-Day power flex.
The trooping of the colour is a parade, it’s got very little hardware compared to the Chinese military parades. Which isn’t a parade in your book?
The Lake Parade in Geneva has absolutely zero military kit and zero discipline, it’s a parade.
The clips I've seen of the orange Taco's birthday parade make it seem utterly pathetic.
Are there any decent ones? Clips where the US military actually looks competent?
Jeremy Clarkson's documentary – The Greatest Raid of All – about the St Nazaire Raid of 1942, included a section on the founding of the Commandos and the move away from drills and parades (square-bashing). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Zd0Oy8JyQ
(A question that has just occurred to me is whether the raid was perhaps counter-productive in the end but what do I know?)
Anyway, I suspect Trump's problem is that his best soldiers haven't done this since basic training many years ago.
There’s a dubious theory on Twitter that the slovenliness was a deliberate insult from the army to the orange C in C.
Re square bashing, the British state broadcaster was virtually orgasmic yesterday over the parade smartness and timing of HMG’s troops, so eye of the beholder I guess.
Nah - a few years ago I was invited to attend the Brookwood Remembrance Sunday event. It’s usually the local Brits, but there was a US carrier in Southampton so they sent a contingent of marines as well. The contrast was extraordinary - both the crispness of the uniforms and the precision of the marching was far higher among the Brits
If a company wants to build Britain’s roads, railways, hospitals or schools — then our new rules make sure they also create local jobs and growth for British workers.
Our Plan for Change will get Britain building.
There is a theory that overuse of em dashes is a sign of AI-authorship.
I'm more concerned about what the Prime Minister has in mind. What is meant by creating growth for British workers (assuming it means anything at all, which I doubt)?
If a company wants to build Britain’s roads, railways, hospitals or schools — then our new rules make sure they also create local jobs and growth for British workers.
Our Plan for Change will get Britain building.
Can't be long until Gulags for Slags getting a re-airing.
It is not (on the surface of it) a bad idea. PBers have suggested similar things. It's usually below the surface that this Government’s ideas turn out crap though. And in this instance, the ambition seems very low. How would a company manage to build roads or schools in the UK without employing any UK people? It's possible I suppose but not plausible.
The clips I've seen of the orange Taco's birthday parade make it seem utterly pathetic.
Are there any decent ones? Clips where the US military actually looks competent?
What an utterly bizarre take. If you are seriously judging the US military’s competence on their ability to march/ wear wonderful uniforms etc such as at the trooping of the colour then please, please agree you will never accept being Minister of Defence.
(Snip)
What do you think the purpose of the parade was? Was it a jolly carnival, or was it supposed to show the current American forces at their best to American and the world? If the former, fair enough. If the latter, then it was an epic fail. And will have been seen as such in every country that can actually organise parades. The reenactors were far better.
As it happens, I agree that the US military can be incredibly competent. This parade did not show any of that competence; in fact, it showed incompetence. Which was the point of my comment.
I always thought of Trump as a showman. That was not a show of martial power; it was a comedy.
I think, based on the soldiers waving from vehicles to the re-enactment groups wearing revolutionary war, civil war and world war 2 outfits marching in it is was a jolly. If the US military wanted to show their forces at their best then it wouldn’t have been marching, it’s not really their strong suit.
Then it's not a military parade, is it? It's a carnival or fair. And many parades held by various countries have more than passing nods to their country's great martial past - just look at the T-34s at previous Russian parades.
But this was sold as a parade, and other countries will be laughing at the US army's 'display'.
I’m guessing you will be taking issue with Pride Parades not being called Parades as insufficiently organised and dramatic? “Parade” is not a technical word that requires certain standards or rules. It can be a celebratory procession or a hyper-organised Soviet style May-Day power flex.
The trooping of the colour is a parade, it’s got very little hardware compared to the Chinese military parades. Which isn’t a parade in your book?
The Lake Parade in Geneva has absolutely zero military kit and zero discipline, it’s a parade.
Are you equating Trump's birthday bash to a Pride Parade? Interesting.
The clips I've seen of the orange Taco's birthday parade make it seem utterly pathetic.
Are there any decent ones? Clips where the US military actually looks competent?
What an utterly bizarre take. If you are seriously judging the US military’s competence on their ability to march/ wear wonderful uniforms etc such as at the trooping of the colour then please, please agree you will never accept being Minister of Defence.
(Snip)
What do you think the purpose of the parade was? Was it a jolly carnival, or was it supposed to show the current American forces at their best to American and the world? If the former, fair enough. If the latter, then it was an epic fail. And will have been seen as such in every country that can actually organise parades. The reenactors were far better.
As it happens, I agree that the US military can be incredibly competent. This parade did not show any of that competence; in fact, it showed incompetence. Which was the point of my comment.
I always thought of Trump as a showman. That was not a show of martial power; it was a comedy.
I think, based on the soldiers waving from vehicles to the re-enactment groups wearing revolutionary war, civil war and world war 2 outfits marching in it is was a jolly. If the US military wanted to show their forces at their best then it wouldn’t have been marching, it’s not really their strong suit.
Then it's not a military parade, is it? It's a carnival or fair. And many parades held by various countries have more than passing nods to their country's great martial past - just look at the T-34s at previous Russian parades.
But this was sold as a parade, and other countries will be laughing at the US army's 'display'.
I’m guessing you will be taking issue with Pride Parades not being called Parades as insufficiently organised and dramatic? “Parade” is not a technical word that requires certain standards or rules. It can be a celebratory procession or a hyper-organised Soviet style May-Day power flex.
The trooping of the colour is a parade, it’s got very little hardware compared to the Chinese military parades. Which isn’t a parade in your book?
The Lake Parade in Geneva has absolutely zero military kit and zero discipline, it’s a parade.
Are you equating Trump's birthday bash to a Pride Parade? Interesting.
The clips I've seen of the orange Taco's birthday parade make it seem utterly pathetic.
Are there any decent ones? Clips where the US military actually looks competent?
What an utterly bizarre take. If you are seriously judging the US military’s competence on their ability to march/ wear wonderful uniforms etc such as at the trooping of the colour then please, please agree you will never accept being Minister of Defence.
(Snip)
What do you think the purpose of the parade was? Was it a jolly carnival, or was it supposed to show the current American forces at their best to American and the world? If the former, fair enough. If the latter, then it was an epic fail. And will have been seen as such in every country that can actually organise parades. The reenactors were far better.
As it happens, I agree that the US military can be incredibly competent. This parade did not show any of that competence; in fact, it showed incompetence. Which was the point of my comment.
I always thought of Trump as a showman. That was not a show of martial power; it was a comedy.
I think, based on the soldiers waving from vehicles to the re-enactment groups wearing revolutionary war, civil war and world war 2 outfits marching in it is was a jolly. If the US military wanted to show their forces at their best then it wouldn’t have been marching, it’s not really their strong suit.
Then it's not a military parade, is it? It's a carnival or fair. And many parades held by various countries have more than passing nods to their country's great martial past - just look at the T-34s at previous Russian parades.
But this was sold as a parade, and other countries will be laughing at the US army's 'display'.
I’m guessing you will be taking issue with Pride Parades not being called Parades as insufficiently organised and dramatic? “Parade” is not a technical word that requires certain standards or rules. It can be a celebratory procession or a hyper-organised Soviet style May-Day power flex.
The trooping of the colour is a parade, it’s got very little hardware compared to the Chinese military parades. Which isn’t a parade in your book?
The Lake Parade in Geneva has absolutely zero military kit and zero discipline, it’s a parade.
Are you equating Trump's birthday bash to a Pride Parade? Interesting.
Man in make-up arranging for men in uniform to perform in front of him. Maybe.
The clips I've seen of the orange Taco's birthday parade make it seem utterly pathetic.
Are there any decent ones? Clips where the US military actually looks competent?
What an utterly bizarre take. If you are seriously judging the US military’s competence on their ability to march/ wear wonderful uniforms etc such as at the trooping of the colour then please, please agree you will never accept being Minister of Defence.
(Snip)
What do you think the purpose of the parade was? Was it a jolly carnival, or was it supposed to show the current American forces at their best to American and the world? If the former, fair enough. If the latter, then it was an epic fail. And will have been seen as such in every country that can actually organise parades. The reenactors were far better.
As it happens, I agree that the US military can be incredibly competent. This parade did not show any of that competence; in fact, it showed incompetence. Which was the point of my comment.
I always thought of Trump as a showman. That was not a show of martial power; it was a comedy.
If they wanted marching, where was the 3rd Infantry Regiment? They are trained for parades and do all the elaborate drill stuff.
I expect one or two of Trump's appointees could provide the powder to assist with the marching.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
What about flattening Tehran, Gaza style?
How many people across the Middle East is Bibi allowed to kill since 0ctober 7th 2023? How many deaths has he sanctioned since he became Prime Minister? He will go down in history and one of the World's greatest monsters.
Now before you charge me with anti-Semitism, my concern is for Netanyahu's morality. I am not questioning Judaism or the right for Israel to exist.
So what you are basically saying is How many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died?
I am sure Netanyahu has no maximum number for the collateral death rate for Arabs and Persians. Quite possibly, the more the merrier.
I get that your think you're being clever with this asinine question but it has never been a part of just war theory to place an upper limit on casualties, and never will be.
What was the upper limit of Axis deaths for Churchill?
What was the upper limit of Japanese deaths for Truman and Roosevelt?
What was the upper limit of enemy deaths for Lloyd George and Asquith?
What was the upper limit of Confederate deaths for Lincoln?
The enemy in war stops dying when they surrender unconditionally. There is no numerical limit until then, never has been, never will be, so stop being so asinine.
How about you actually understand just war theory before spouting bollocks again?
Proportionality is a key principle. As is minimising collateral damage
Dunno about you but I spent half the day here. Did any other PB-ers visit? I thought I glimpsed @Richard_Tyndall but possibly imagining it
Coz it’s a spooky place
It might also be my new favourite place on earth
Because this is Trælanípa - the “slave cliff of Vágar” in the Faroes. Where the “floating lake” of Sørvágsvatn meets the sea and empties in a misty, endless waterfall, like a gutter in a storm. The cliff is thus named because this is where Vikings threw unwanted slaves - infirm, annoying - to their deaths
They clearly chose this place for a reason. It’s perfectly satanic. It’s not a rubbish bin for unwanted thralls, it’s a place of spectacle, a stage for ritual death, requiring a pilgrimage of murderers
Good evening
If you think that sort of thing trying watching Northman
Dunno about you but I spent half the day here. Did any other PB-ers visit? I thought I glimpsed @Richard_Tyndall but possibly imagining it
Coz it’s a spooky place
It might also be my new favourite place on earth
Because this is Trælanípa - the “slave cliff of Vágar” in the Faroes. Where the “floating lake” of Sørvágsvatn meets the sea and empties in a misty, endless waterfall, like a gutter in a storm. The cliff is thus named because this is where Vikings threw unwanted slaves - infirm, annoying - to their deaths
They clearly chose this place for a reason. It’s perfectly satanic. It’s not a rubbish bin for unwanted thralls, it’s a place of spectacle, a stage for ritual death, requiring a pilgrimage of murderers
Good evening
If you think that sort of thing trying watching Northman
I did. IIRC it was utterly terrible
Viking slavery is massively underplayed. Between a quarter and a third of Viking societies were slaves
Dunno about you but I spent half the day here. Did any other PB-ers visit? I thought I glimpsed @Richard_Tyndall but possibly imagining it
Coz it’s a spooky place
It might also be my new favourite place on earth
Because this is Trælanípa - the “slave cliff of Vágar” in the Faroes. Where the “floating lake” of Sørvágsvatn meets the sea and empties in a misty, endless waterfall, like a gutter in a storm. The cliff is thus named because this is where Vikings threw unwanted slaves - infirm, annoying - to their deaths
They clearly chose this place for a reason. It’s perfectly satanic. It’s not a rubbish bin for unwanted thralls, it’s a place of spectacle, a stage for ritual death, requiring a pilgrimage of murderers
Good evening
If you think that sort of thing trying watching Northman
I think you inadverdently make an interesting point. The BBC have Iran and Israel as their top article - an appropriate pick, I'm sure we would agree - while the top read article on the whole website is about the Beckhams.
Dunno about you but I spent half the day here. Did any other PB-ers visit? I thought I glimpsed @Richard_Tyndall but possibly imagining it
Coz it’s a spooky place
It might also be my new favourite place on earth
Because this is Trælanípa - the “slave cliff of Vágar” in the Faroes. Where the “floating lake” of Sørvágsvatn meets the sea and empties in a misty, endless waterfall, like a gutter in a storm. The cliff is thus named because this is where Vikings threw unwanted slaves - infirm, annoying - to their deaths
They clearly chose this place for a reason. It’s perfectly satanic. It’s not a rubbish bin for unwanted thralls, it’s a place of spectacle, a stage for ritual death, requiring a pilgrimage of murderers
Good evening
If you think that sort of thing trying watching Northman
I did. IIRC it was utterly terrible
Viking slavery is massively underplayed. Between a quarter and a third of Viking societies were slaves
How often do you see that on screen?
IIrc it played a significant part of the plot in the mostly very good Last Kingdom.
If a company wants to build Britain’s roads, railways, hospitals or schools — then our new rules make sure they also create local jobs and growth for British workers.
Our Plan for Change will get Britain building.
There is a theory that overuse of em dashes is a sign of AI-authorship.
I'm more concerned about what the Prime Minister has in mind. What is meant by creating growth for British workers (assuming it means anything at all, which I doubt)?
I have a feeling that for Starmer it is just words such as levelling up was for Boris but the phrase may outlast the PM. The age of global trade is coming to an end and the UK is particularly at risk from stretched supply chains. As a SME business owner I am presently politically homeless as the Tories threw us to the dogs. I am waiting to see who will pick up the mantle.
Dunno about you but I spent half the day here. Did any other PB-ers visit? I thought I glimpsed @Richard_Tyndall but possibly imagining it
Coz it’s a spooky place
It might also be my new favourite place on earth
Because this is Trælanípa - the “slave cliff of Vágar” in the Faroes. Where the “floating lake” of Sørvágsvatn meets the sea and empties in a misty, endless waterfall, like a gutter in a storm. The cliff is thus named because this is where Vikings threw unwanted slaves - infirm, annoying - to their deaths
They clearly chose this place for a reason. It’s perfectly satanic. It’s not a rubbish bin for unwanted thralls, it’s a place of spectacle, a stage for ritual death, requiring a pilgrimage of murderers
Good evening
If you think that sort of thing trying watching Northman
I did. IIRC it was utterly terrible
Viking slavery is massively underplayed. Between a quarter and a third of Viking societies were slaves
How often do you see that on screen?
IIrc it played a significant part of the plot in the mostly very good Last Kingdom.
Not really (and I thoroughly enjoyed Last Kingdom)
The heartlessness of it is quite astonishing. One of the cruellest of all slaving societies. Slaves were absolutely no better than cattle. Casually killed, or raped, whenever. And Viking society was totally dependant on it, economically. Those impressive boats and sails didn’t build or sew themselves
If a company wants to build Britain’s roads, railways, hospitals or schools — then our new rules make sure they also create local jobs and growth for British workers.
Our Plan for Change will get Britain building.
A problem being that 'British worker' would be defined to include any migrant who had arrived the previous month.
If a company wants to build Britain’s roads, railways, hospitals or schools — then our new rules make sure they also create local jobs and growth for British workers.
Our Plan for Change will get Britain building.
There is a theory that overuse of em dashes is a sign of AI-authorship.
I'm more concerned about what the Prime Minister has in mind. What is meant by creating growth for British workers (assuming it means anything at all, which I doubt)?
I assume it means changing some stat which gets him bad headlines.
It's getting close to a year now since they won a majority of a trillionty. And I've still to get any clear idea of their plans for ... anything really. Growth? SMR's? Something, something 'AI'?
If a company wants to build Britain’s roads, railways, hospitals or schools — then our new rules make sure they also create local jobs and growth for British workers.
Our Plan for Change will get Britain building.
There is a theory that overuse of em dashes is a sign of AI-authorship.
I'm more concerned about what the Prime Minister has in mind. What is meant by creating growth for British workers (assuming it means anything at all, which I doubt)?
The poetry of Emily Dickinson might test this em dash theory to destruction. But maybe she was a robot. Like:
“Hope” is the thing with feathers - That perches in the soul - And sings the tune without the words - And never stops - at all -
And sweetest - in the Gale - is heard - And sore must be the storm - That could abash the little Bird That kept so many warm -
I’ve heard it in the chillest land - And on the strangest Sea - Yet - never - in Extremity, It asked a crumb - of me.
If a company wants to build Britain’s roads, railways, hospitals or schools — then our new rules make sure they also create local jobs and growth for British workers.
Our Plan for Change will get Britain building.
A problem being that 'British worker' would be defined to include any migrant who had arrived the previous month.
Cynical and deluded.
Perhaps you'd like to show me how 'any migrant' can become British within one month.
No doubt you can point out to the relevant route?:
Aside from news on Birmingham City I never really search the BBC site
He came to a game once.
So "number one article on the BBC Website" is actually 'most-viewed'.
But let's not miss an opportunity to criticise the BBC, eh?
That clearly makes it the most popular and, yes, the BBC should be subject to criticism and as a licence fee payer I will criticise it. It is not impervious to it and this sort of low rent Daily Mail sidebar of shame tat helps undermine the cause of the licence fee.
I don’t care either way about the BBC but I strongly object to the licence fee as a means of funding, especially as it offers me little, and its third party using SJPs against people, mainly women, who watch without a licence fee.
As for the guy who recently suggested that streamers should be taxed to help fund the BBC. No.
If a company wants to build Britain’s roads, railways, hospitals or schools — then our new rules make sure they also create local jobs and growth for British workers.
Our Plan for Change will get Britain building.
A problem being that 'British worker' would be defined to include any migrant who had arrived the previous month.
Cynical and deluded.
Perhaps you'd like to show me how 'any migrant' can become British within one month.
No doubt you can point out to the relevant route?:
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
Dunno about you but I spent half the day here. Did any other PB-ers visit? I thought I glimpsed @Richard_Tyndall but possibly imagining it
Coz it’s a spooky place
It might also be my new favourite place on earth
Because this is Trælanípa - the “slave cliff of Vágar” in the Faroes. Where the “floating lake” of Sørvágsvatn meets the sea and empties in a misty, endless waterfall, like a gutter in a storm. The cliff is thus named because this is where Vikings threw unwanted slaves - infirm, annoying - to their deaths
They clearly chose this place for a reason. It’s perfectly satanic. It’s not a rubbish bin for unwanted thralls, it’s a place of spectacle, a stage for ritual death, requiring a pilgrimage of murderers
Good evening
If you think that sort of thing trying watching Northman
I did. IIRC it was utterly terrible
Viking slavery is massively underplayed. Between a quarter and a third of Viking societies were slaves
How often do you see that on screen?
IIrc it played a significant part of the plot in the mostly very good Last Kingdom.
Not really (and I thoroughly enjoyed Last Kingdom)
The heartlessness of it is quite astonishing. One of the cruellest of all slaving societies. Slaves were absolutely no better than cattle. Casually killed, or raped, whenever. And Viking society was totally dependant on it, economically. Those impressive boats and sails didn’t build or sew themselves
It was a trading thing too. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of Islam, Western Europe was so poor that all it had to trade with the much richer East was slaves. The Vikings acted as key slave merchants sending them East to Constantinople and the Muslim powers.
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
What about flattening Tehran, Gaza style?
How many people across the Middle East is Bibi allowed to kill since 0ctober 7th 2023? How many deaths has he sanctioned since he became Prime Minister? He will go down in history and one of the World's greatest monsters.
Now before you charge me with anti-Semitism, my concern is for Netanyahu's morality. I am not questioning Judaism or the right for Israel to exist.
So what you are basically saying is How many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died?
I am sure Netanyahu has no maximum number for the collateral death rate for Arabs and Persians. Quite possibly, the more the merrier.
I get that your think you're being clever with this asinine question but it has never been a part of just war theory to place an upper limit on casualties, and never will be.
What was the upper limit of Axis deaths for Churchill?
What was the upper limit of Japanese deaths for Truman and Roosevelt?
What was the upper limit of enemy deaths for Lloyd George and Asquith?
What was the upper limit of Confederate deaths for Lincoln?
The enemy in war stops dying when they surrender unconditionally. There is no numerical limit until then, never has been, never will be, so stop being so asinine.
The US did consider the scale of possible Japanese casualties when considering invading in 1945 and in the choice to drop the atom bomb. The world is less simple than you sometimes paint it.
Considering it is of course reasonable.
That isn't what @Mexicanpete is demanding though. He wants a number.
No war in the history of warfare has been judged on that basis, why should this one?
Just war theory exists. The question is whether you agree, as I do, that its proportionate for the aims to be fighting. If so, its just. If not, its not. There is no numerical upper or lower bound to operate within, never has been, never will be.
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
If a company wants to build Britain’s roads, railways, hospitals or schools — then our new rules make sure they also create local jobs and growth for British workers.
Our Plan for Change will get Britain building.
A problem being that 'British worker' would be defined to include any migrant who had arrived the previous month.
Cynical and deluded.
Perhaps you'd like to show me how 'any migrant' can become British within one month.
No doubt you can point out to the relevant route?:
I'm never one to want to see the price of petrol go up, but if paying more for a litre of unleaded is the price we need to pay to see the elimination of the Iranian regime then I'm prepared to pay it.
I hope the Israelis smash the Iranian nuclear, industrial and oil refineries into dust unless or until there's regime change.
What about flattening Tehran, Gaza style?
How many people across the Middle East is Bibi allowed to kill since 0ctober 7th 2023? How many deaths has he sanctioned since he became Prime Minister? He will go down in history and one of the World's greatest monsters.
Now before you charge me with anti-Semitism, my concern is for Netanyahu's morality. I am not questioning Judaism or the right for Israel to exist.
So what you are basically saying is How many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died?
I am sure Netanyahu has no maximum number for the collateral death rate for Arabs and Persians. Quite possibly, the more the merrier.
I get that your think you're being clever with this asinine question but it has never been a part of just war theory to place an upper limit on casualties, and never will be.
What was the upper limit of Axis deaths for Churchill?
What was the upper limit of Japanese deaths for Truman and Roosevelt?
What was the upper limit of enemy deaths for Lloyd George and Asquith?
What was the upper limit of Confederate deaths for Lincoln?
The enemy in war stops dying when they surrender unconditionally. There is no numerical limit until then, never has been, never will be, so stop being so asinine.
How about you actually understand just war theory before spouting bollocks again?
Proportionality is a key principle. As is minimising collateral damage
How about you read and understand my point?
I have said all along that proportionality and minimising collateral damage are key.
Setting numerical limits or zero collateral damage is not.
I'm having a bit of a mare at the moment. Managed to break an old component which is no longer in production, but it also turns out the rest of the groupset is incompatible with what's available.
My mechanic has given me the choice of a risky £150 bodge that might break mid tour/commute, or replacing everything for £500+. It's not my bike, but I did mess it up...
Ebay is your friend
The amount of 'new old stock' things that people keep lying around is amazing
I am always worried about buying parts of ebay for two reasons.
1) They are knock-offs 2) They have been knocked-off somebody elses bike / car when the owner parked it up to go to work.
Its hard enough navigating Amazon these days with all the fakes and very dodgy suppliers. Is it isn't sold by Amazon I now have to do a full companies house, google search, trust pilot, court records, etc to check if they appear to be legit.
Mostly stolen, I believe, on eBay
Amazon probably just as bad. Worse, because of “binning”, buying stuff from legitimate business, on Amazon, is hazardous.
What happens is that if a product is supposed to be the same, products from multiple suppliers are dumped in the same bin at the Amazon warehouse. So the fake memory cards go in the same bin as the legit ones.
When an order comes in, it’s filled by a dip into the bin. If you are unlucky…
It is increasingly feeling like going on an 18-30 holiday and sleeping around without using protection....who knows what nastiness you are going to pick up.
Both GCN and GMBN have done numerous videos on YouTube where they build complete bikes from components bought off TEMU, Aliexpress and Amazon. It appears that the vast majority of components on the Chinese sites were fake, and most Shimano chains on Amazon were suspect. The bikes they built, assembled by pro bike mechanics were downright dangerous!
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
The clips I've seen of the orange Taco's birthday parade make it seem utterly pathetic.
Are there any decent ones? Clips where the US military actually looks competent?
What an utterly bizarre take. If you are seriously judging the US military’s competence on their ability to march/ wear wonderful uniforms etc such as at the trooping of the colour then please, please agree you will never accept being Minister of Defence.
(Snip)
What do you think the purpose of the parade was? Was it a jolly carnival, or was it supposed to show the current American forces at their best to American and the world? If the former, fair enough. If the latter, then it was an epic fail. And will have been seen as such in every country that can actually organise parades. The reenactors were far better.
As it happens, I agree that the US military can be incredibly competent. This parade did not show any of that competence; in fact, it showed incompetence. Which was the point of my comment.
I always thought of Trump as a showman. That was not a show of martial power; it was a comedy.
I think, based on the soldiers waving from vehicles to the re-enactment groups wearing revolutionary war, civil war and world war 2 outfits marching in it is was a jolly. If the US military wanted to show their forces at their best then it wouldn’t have been marching, it’s not really their strong suit.
Then it's not a military parade, is it? It's a carnival or fair. And many parades held by various countries have more than passing nods to their country's great martial past - just look at the T-34s at previous Russian parades.
But this was sold as a parade, and other countries will be laughing at the US army's 'display'.
I’m guessing you will be taking issue with Pride Parades not being called Parades as insufficiently organised and dramatic? “Parade” is not a technical word that requires certain standards or rules. It can be a celebratory procession or a hyper-organised Soviet style May-Day power flex.
The trooping of the colour is a parade, it’s got very little hardware compared to the Chinese military parades. Which isn’t a parade in your book?
The Lake Parade in Geneva has absolutely zero military kit and zero discipline, it’s a parade.
Agreed
"From French parade (“an ostentatious display, a military display”), from parer (“to beautify, prepare, take pride in”) + -ade probably under influence from earlier Italian parata (“preparation, a military parade, an ostentatious display”) and Latin magnō parātū (“with great preparation”)".
I have said all along that Israel should do whatever they can to minimise civilian deaths while doing whatever is necessary to achieve the military objective of the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
If they do that, they are being just and proportional as per just war theory. Regardless of whatever number of casualties there may tragically be, casualties are a tragic fact of war which is why war should be a last resort.
But we are at that last resort and they are at war. And they are entitled to persecute that war until they achieve the unconditional surrender of Hamas as a military objective. As long as they minimise (not avoid entirely) civilian casualties, without prejuding the achievement of that objective, it is just and proportionate.
Some people seem to think that seeking the unconditional surrender of Hamas is going too far. That has never been just war theory. Never.
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
Pedant alert!!! We don't use the Richter scale anymore.
Vote Reform! Bring back the Richter Scale!
See you at the party, Richter!
Surely the flaw with the Richter Scale is that it stops at 10. No matter how devastating an earthquake might be it's always possible to imagine a worse one.
BREAKING: The head of Iran's intelligence agency and his deputy were killed in Israeli strikes today, the state-owned Iranian news agency Tasnin has reported.
BREAKING: The head of Iran's intelligence agency and his deputy were killed in Israeli strikes today, the state-owned Iranian news agency Tasnin has reported.
Pedant alert!!! We don't use the Richter scale anymore.
Vote Reform! Bring back the Richter Scale!
See you at the party, Richter!
Surely the flaw with the Richter Scale is that it stops at 10. No matter how devastating an earthquake might be it's always possible to imagine a worse one.
I'm not sure that's true - I don't think there's an upper limit to the Richter scale. It's just a logarithmic one. But the step from 10 to 11 is so big effectively it'd be the planet earthquaking itself to bits.
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Totally agree with this
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Unironically we're in a much stronger position to influence American politics doing things like that than the Russians or anyone else.
Pedant alert!!! We don't use the Richter scale anymore.
Vote Reform! Bring back the Richter Scale!
See you at the party, Richter!
Surely the flaw with the Richter Scale is that it stops at 10. No matter how devastating an earthquake might be it's always possible to imagine a worse one.
I think it theoretically could go to 11 (#spinaltap) but it’s a logarithmic scale and 11 would involve the planet shaking itself apart. But IANAG
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Totally agree with this
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
The 'our values' it would be projecting would be more likely to be self-hating guilt trips involving slavery and racism than anything you would class as 'our values'.
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Totally agree with this
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
The 'our values' it would be projecting would be more likely to be self-hating guilt trips involving slavery and racism than anything you would class as 'our values'.
Well yes. If the British government agrees to supercharge the BBC then the BBC must agree to drop 97% of the Woke Crap
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Totally agree with this
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
It can do what it wants, as long as I dont have to pay them to watch content from other platforms. Strictly, Dr Who and football just ain't my bag.
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Totally agree with this
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
The 'our values' it would be projecting would be more likely to be self-hating guilt trips involving slavery and racism than anything you would class as 'our values'.
But perhaps that is downstream of a cultural passivity that means we just try to fit in with American narratives.
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Totally agree with this
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
The 'our values' it would be projecting would be more likely to be self-hating guilt trips involving slavery and racism than anything you would class as 'our values'.
But perhaps that is downstream of a cultural passivity that means we just try to fit in with American narratives.
Indeed.
There are certainly British politicians and media commentators who would prefer to be on one side or other of the American cultural-political wars rather than deal with more British issues.
Anyone babbling on about abortion, one way or another, is an example.
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Totally agree with this
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
The 'our values' it would be projecting would be more likely to be self-hating guilt trips involving slavery and racism than anything you would class as 'our values'.
Well yes. If the British government agrees to supercharge the BBC then the BBC must agree to drop 97% of the Woke Crap
That would mean losing an extremely lucrative potential market in the US.
No, what the BBC needs is different channels. It has a BBC Farsi service, and a Pashtu service. Why not a BBC woke service, and BBC non-woke? Go after both markets. The woke channel gets the News Quiz, Attenborough and Gary Lineker, the non-woke one gets David Starkey, Mrs Brown’s boys and Laura Kuenssburg.
It's looking clear that the Israelis have got over-confident.
Evening PB.
It's looking clear that the Israelis have got total air superiority over Iran.
Another Iranian leader dead. Israeli jets flying unimpeded in Iranian air space. Iran impotently lobbing a few missiles at civilian buildings while Israel degrades their military.
Israel have the upper hand and will never have a better opportunity than this to push on, and push hard, and push fast.
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Totally agree with this
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
The 'our values' it would be projecting would be more likely to be self-hating guilt trips involving slavery and racism than anything you would class as 'our values'.
Well yes. If the British government agrees to supercharge the BBC then the BBC must agree to drop 97% of the Woke Crap
That would mean losing an extremely lucrative potential market in the US.
No, what the BBC needs is different channels. It has a BBC Farsi service, and a Pashtu service. Why not a BBC woke service, and BBC non-woke? Go after both markets. The woke channel gets the News Quiz, Attenborough and Gary Lineker, the non-woke one gets David Starkey, Mrs Brown’s boys and Laura Kuenssburg.
They have BBC lesser woke commercial service its called UK TV I.e. Dave, Yesterday, etc.
Given they had ads on BBC News, BBC podcasts etc outside the UK and ads on UK TV, the argument about the BBC can't carry ads is somewhat redundant now.
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Totally agree with this
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
The 'our values' it would be projecting would be more likely to be self-hating guilt trips involving slavery and racism than anything you would class as 'our values'.
Well yes. If the British government agrees to supercharge the BBC then the BBC must agree to drop 97% of the Woke Crap
Problem is, in the U.K.,its audience is declining anyway.
That is just the market nothing to do with wokeness.
The news, especially local news and politics, should be more than just churnalism recycling lobbyists and pressure groups recent press releases.
There is a proposal to add the licence fee to council tax. Not sure if it has legs or not. Personally I think we pay a lot anyway and adding extra when it is going up by 5% for the next 5 years won’t be tenable.
I get that some people value the BBC. I think many don’t.
Also the prosecutions under the single justice procedure of people, especially poor women or people with mental health issues over not having a licence is appalling.
I'm having a bit of a mare at the moment. Managed to break an old component which is no longer in production, but it also turns out the rest of the groupset is incompatible with what's available.
My mechanic has given me the choice of a risky £150 bodge that might break mid tour/commute, or replacing everything for £500+. It's not my bike, but I did mess it up...
Ebay is your friend
The amount of 'new old stock' things that people keep lying around is amazing
I am always worried about buying parts of ebay for two reasons.
1) They are knock-offs 2) They have been knocked-off somebody elses bike / car when the owner parked it up to go to work.
Its hard enough navigating Amazon these days with all the fakes and very dodgy suppliers. Is it isn't sold by Amazon I now have to do a full companies house, google search, trust pilot, court records, etc to check if they appear to be legit.
Mostly stolen, I believe, on eBay
Amazon probably just as bad. Worse, because of “binning”, buying stuff from legitimate business, on Amazon, is hazardous.
What happens is that if a product is supposed to be the same, products from multiple suppliers are dumped in the same bin at the Amazon warehouse. So the fake memory cards go in the same bin as the legit ones.
When an order comes in, it’s filled by a dip into the bin. If you are unlucky…
It is increasingly feeling like going on an 18-30 holiday and sleeping around without using protection....who knows what nastiness you are going to pick up.
Both GCN and GMBN have done numerous videos on YouTube where they build complete bikes from components bought off TEMU, Aliexpress and Amazon. It appears that the vast majority of components on the Chinese sites were fake, and most Shimano chains on Amazon were suspect. The bikes they built, assembled by pro bike mechanics were downright dangerous!
There's a guy called Luke who has a channel called TraceVelo. He buys stuff from AliExpress from Chinese bike companies who are trying to make a name.
BREAKING: The head of Iran's intelligence agency and his deputy were killed in Israeli strikes today, the state-owned Iranian news agency Tasnin has reported.
Careless.
I strongly recommend watching “Tehran” the TV drama series
1. Season 2 has saved me from a terrible tv drama drought, after The Last of Us turned into awful woke nonsense and Department Q turned out to be cliched drivel. It’s GOOD
But also
2. It’s an excellent & enlightening insight into the whole Iranian Israeli struggle. It dramatises exactly what we’re seeing now. Mossad on the streets of Tehran assassinating top Iranians. In season 2 they literally go after the head of the IRG - the guy Israel just slotted in real life
If lots of people skip the Iran/Israel news and click the Beckham news - what do you want them to do?
It’s the sort of low rent sleb stuff you can get in a myriad of places online from commercial news agencies.
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
It really doesn't. They shouldn't cater to regular people? They should? Maybe no news for normies - only the highbrows? Or... what?
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
If the BBC is offering stuff, off the back of a guaranteed income stream, that is really competing with commercial enterprises, who have to compete for a declining income, I don’t see that as sustainable in the marketplace or reasonable.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
... So "no news for normies" then? Publicly funded - but slimmed down and offering niche news for nerds?
That’s one option. ‘If it exists’ as a public funded body. Filling the gaps the market doesn’t fill. Funding would be tiny compared to now. Why should the public pay for a non commercial provider to provide stuff commercially available elsewhere ?
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
I’d make the Beeb both fully commercial and publicly funded. It’s one of the most powerful global brands we have. If not the most.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Totally agree with this
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
The 'our values' it would be projecting would be more likely to be self-hating guilt trips involving slavery and racism than anything you would class as 'our values'.
Well yes. If the British government agrees to supercharge the BBC then the BBC must agree to drop 97% of the Woke Crap
Problem is, in the U.K.,its audience is declining anyway.
That is just the market nothing to do with wokeness.
The news, especially local news and politics, should be more than just churnalism recycling lobbyists and pressure groups recent press releases.
There is a proposal to add the licence fee to council tax. Not sure if it has legs or not. Personally I think we pay a lot anyway and adding extra when it is going up by 5% for the next 5 years won’t be tenable.
I get that some people value the BBC. I think many don’t.
Also the prosecutions under the single justice procedure of people, especially poor women or people with mental health issues over not having a licence is appalling.
Interesting about council tax. In France I pay the « redevance audiovisuel » as part of council tax. Or did. I think they stopped it a couple of years ago.
BREAKING: The head of Iran's intelligence agency and his deputy were killed in Israeli strikes today, the state-owned Iranian news agency Tasnin has reported.
Careless.
I strongly recommend watching “Tehran” the TV drama series
1. Season 2 has saved me from a terrible tv drama drought, after The Last of Us turned into awful woke nonsense and Department Q turned out to be cliched drivel. It’s GOOD
But also
2. It’s an excellent & enlightening insight into the whole Iranian Israeli struggle. It dramatises exactly what we’re seeing now. Mossad on the streets of Tehran assassinating top Iranians. In season 2 they literally go after the head of the IRG - the guy Israel just slotted in real life
I have said all along that Israel should do whatever they can to minimise civilian deaths while doing whatever is necessary to achieve the military objective of the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
If they do that, they are being just and proportional as per just war theory. Regardless of whatever number of casualties there may tragically be, casualties are a tragic fact of war which is why war should be a last resort.
But we are at that last resort and they are at war. And they are entitled to persecute that war until they achieve the unconditional surrender of Hamas as a military objective. As long as they minimise (not avoid entirely) civilian casualties, without prejuding the achievement of that objective, it is just and proportionate.
Some people seem to think that seeking the unconditional surrender of Hamas is going too far. That has never been just war theory. Never.
No. Most people think that is a valid war aim, but that it is very, very obvious that they are not being proportionate in Gaza.
I'm having a bit of a mare at the moment. Managed to break an old component which is no longer in production, but it also turns out the rest of the groupset is incompatible with what's available.
My mechanic has given me the choice of a risky £150 bodge that might break mid tour/commute, or replacing everything for £500+. It's not my bike, but I did mess it up...
Ebay is your friend
The amount of 'new old stock' things that people keep lying around is amazing
I am always worried about buying parts of ebay for two reasons.
1) They are knock-offs 2) They have been knocked-off somebody elses bike / car when the owner parked it up to go to work.
Its hard enough navigating Amazon these days with all the fakes and very dodgy suppliers. Is it isn't sold by Amazon I now have to do a full companies house, google search, trust pilot, court records, etc to check if they appear to be legit.
Mostly stolen, I believe, on eBay
Amazon probably just as bad. Worse, because of “binning”, buying stuff from legitimate business, on Amazon, is hazardous.
What happens is that if a product is supposed to be the same, products from multiple suppliers are dumped in the same bin at the Amazon warehouse. So the fake memory cards go in the same bin as the legit ones.
When an order comes in, it’s filled by a dip into the bin. If you are unlucky…
It is increasingly feeling like going on an 18-30 holiday and sleeping around without using protection....who knows what nastiness you are going to pick up.
Both GCN and GMBN have done numerous videos on YouTube where they build complete bikes from components bought off TEMU, Aliexpress and Amazon. It appears that the vast majority of components on the Chinese sites were fake, and most Shimano chains on Amazon were suspect. The bikes they built, assembled by pro bike mechanics were downright dangerous!
There's a guy called Luke who has a channel called TraceVelo. He buys stuff from AliExpress from Chinese bike companies who are trying to make a name.
Some are good, some terrible.
I've got no issue with Chinese brands trying to get in the market, but looking for established brand components appears to be a right lottery.
I have said all along that Israel should do whatever they can to minimise civilian deaths while doing whatever is necessary to achieve the military objective of the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
If they do that, they are being just and proportional as per just war theory. Regardless of whatever number of casualties there may tragically be, casualties are a tragic fact of war which is why war should be a last resort.
But we are at that last resort and they are at war. And they are entitled to persecute that war until they achieve the unconditional surrender of Hamas as a military objective. As long as they minimise (not avoid entirely) civilian casualties, without prejuding the achievement of that objective, it is just and proportionate.
Some people seem to think that seeking the unconditional surrender of Hamas is going too far. That has never been just war theory. Never.
No. Most people think that is a valid war aim, but that it is very, very obvious that they are not being proportionate in Gaza.
Why?
How can they better and more proportionately (realistically) achieve the objective?
Without sacrificing what we agree is a legitimate objective?
Evening all. Iran appears to be struggling to get as many missiles away today. If theyre running short on launchers or the takedowns are giving them command and control logistics issues they'll need a different strategy.
Evening all. Iran appears to be struggling to get as many missiles away today. If theyre running short on launchers or the takedowns are giving them command and control logistics issues they'll need a different strategy.
Pedant alert!!! We don't use the Richter scale anymore.
Vote Reform! Bring back the Richter Scale!
See you at the party, Richter!
Surely the flaw with the Richter Scale is that it stops at 10. No matter how devastating an earthquake might be it's always possible to imagine a worse one.
I'm not sure that's true - I don't think there's an upper limit to the Richter scale. It's just a logarithmic one. But the step from 10 to 11 is so big effectively it'd be the planet earthquaking itself to bits.
I suspect you need to get to 12 or 13 to be there on the planet shaking itself to bits.
You just got me thinking and I wondered where Chicxulub registered on the Richter scale. And, it turns out, they reckon it (the subsequent earthquake) was an 11.
Evening all. Iran appears to be struggling to get as many missiles away today. If theyre running short on launchers or the takedowns are giving them command and control logistics issues they'll need a different strategy.
I have said all along that Israel should do whatever they can to minimise civilian deaths while doing whatever is necessary to achieve the military objective of the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
If they do that, they are being just and proportional as per just war theory. Regardless of whatever number of casualties there may tragically be, casualties are a tragic fact of war which is why war should be a last resort.
But we are at that last resort and they are at war. And they are entitled to persecute that war until they achieve the unconditional surrender of Hamas as a military objective. As long as they minimise (not avoid entirely) civilian casualties, without prejuding the achievement of that objective, it is just and proportionate.
Some people seem to think that seeking the unconditional surrender of Hamas is going too far. That has never been just war theory. Never.
No. Most people think that is a valid war aim, but that it is very, very obvious that they are not being proportionate in Gaza.
Why?
How can they better and more proportionately (realistically) achieve the objective?
Without sacrificing what we agree is a legitimate objective?
Evening all. Iran appears to be struggling to get as many missiles away today. If theyre running short on launchers or the takedowns are giving them command and control logistics issues they'll need a different strategy.
I have said all along that Israel should do whatever they can to minimise civilian deaths while doing whatever is necessary to achieve the military objective of the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
If they do that, they are being just and proportional as per just war theory. Regardless of whatever number of casualties there may tragically be, casualties are a tragic fact of war which is why war should be a last resort.
But we are at that last resort and they are at war. And they are entitled to persecute that war until they achieve the unconditional surrender of Hamas as a military objective. As long as they minimise (not avoid entirely) civilian casualties, without prejuding the achievement of that objective, it is just and proportionate.
Some people seem to think that seeking the unconditional surrender of Hamas is going too far. That has never been just war theory. Never.
No. Most people think that is a valid war aim, but that it is very, very obvious that they are not being proportionate in Gaza.
Why?
How can they better and more proportionately (realistically) achieve the objective?
Without sacrificing what we agree is a legitimate objective?
Evening all. Iran appears to be struggling to get as many missiles away today. If theyre running short on launchers or the takedowns are giving them command and control logistics issues they'll need a different strategy.
They want Saudi Arabia to join them...
On which side?
The Saudis will end up destroying the houthis and imposing themselves on Yemen if this turns into a regional war
It's looking clear that the Israelis have got over-confident.
Evening PB.
It's looking clear that the Israelis have got total air superiority over Iran.
Another Iranian leader dead. Israeli jets flying unimpeded in Iranian air space. Iran impotently lobbing a few missiles at civilian buildings while Israel degrades their military.
Israel have the upper hand and will never have a better opportunity than this to push on, and push hard, and push fast.
If the Iranians are really, really stupid they'll cobble together a dirty Bomb and lob it at Tel Aviv. The Israeli retaliation would be off the scale. In a rare show of unity there will be fanatics on both sides praying for this outcome.
I don't see how we are not in the Endgame for this vile regime.
I don't think comments like Oracle's suggesting that Iran are resisting well and the Israelis need an off ramp are going to age well.
The Iranian regime may be shaky, especially with Khamenei at the age he is. But what replaces it?
My guess is a sped up version of Russia 1990-2008: they ditch the clerics and the theocracy, there are a few years of secular semi-democracy and capitalism, then the Persian nationalists start to get a grip on power. Eventually becoming an Erdogan style quasi-dictatorship.
Persian nationalist Iran is probably better for the West than Shia Islamist Iran, but possibly worse for Kurds and Arabs, equally hostile to Saudi, and likely not a big friend of Israel either .
Comments
Well worth the license fee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd62dq8gevpo
The trooping of the colour is a parade, it’s got very little hardware compared to the Chinese military parades. Which isn’t a parade in your book?
The Lake Parade in Geneva has absolutely zero military kit and zero discipline, it’s a parade.
Obviously
Proportionality is a key principle. As is minimising collateral damage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
Viking slavery is massively underplayed. Between a quarter and a third of Viking societies were slaves
How often do you see that on screen?
Pulp Librarian
@PulpLibrarian
The Ice King, by Michael Scot. NEL, 1987
https://x.com/PulpLibrarian/status/1934272184865772003
They can't really win, given their audience.
I have a feeling that for Starmer it is just words such as levelling up was for Boris but the phrase may outlast the PM. The age of global trade is coming to an end and the UK is particularly at risk from stretched supply chains. As a SME business owner I am presently politically homeless as the Tories threw us to the dogs. I am waiting to see who will pick up the mantle.
4.3 on the Richter scale.
I’m sure it’s nothing
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1934306007280402741?s=61
The heartlessness of it is quite astonishing. One of the cruellest of all slaving societies. Slaves were absolutely no better than cattle. Casually killed, or raped, whenever. And Viking society was totally dependant on it, economically. Those impressive boats and sails didn’t build or sew themselves
Obviously.
He came to a game once.
It's getting close to a year now since they won a majority of a trillionty. And I've still to get any clear idea of their plans for ... anything really. Growth? SMR's? Something, something 'AI'?
They’re probably better off reading Blind sites quite frankly.
However it’s more a point that whatever politicos or political obsessives think is important really isn’t to most people
Also anything to undermine the licence fee is all well and good for me. Crap like this certainly does that.
But let's not miss an opportunity to criticise the BBC, eh?
“Hope” is the thing with feathers -
That perches in the soul -
And sings the tune without the words -
And never stops - at all -
And sweetest - in the Gale - is heard -
And sore must be the storm -
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm -
I’ve heard it in the chillest land -
And on the strangest Sea -
Yet - never - in Extremity,
It asked a crumb - of me.
We don't use the Richter scale anymore.
Perhaps you'd like to show me how 'any migrant' can become British within one month.
No doubt you can point out to the relevant route?:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-immigration
I don’t care either way about the BBC but I strongly object to the licence fee as a means of funding, especially as it offers me little, and its third party using SJPs against people, mainly women, who watch without a licence fee.
As for the guy who recently suggested that streamers should be taxed to help fund the BBC. No.
I'm no particular cheer leader for them or their funding - but your argument is terrible.
That both their coverage of the middle east and the Beckham story is woeful - and yet probably equally funded - that's where the problem is. Their website is almost the poster child for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
Instead he got a Great Dictator style parade:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dewi05PUBzA
That isn't what @Mexicanpete is demanding though. He wants a number.
No war in the history of warfare has been judged on that basis, why should this one?
Just war theory exists. The question is whether you agree, as I do, that its proportionate for the aims to be fighting. If so, its just. If not, its not. There is no numerical upper or lower bound to operate within, never has been, never will be.
In the days for three or four channels on TV the licence fee as is is fine. Now when you have a diversity of channels for fee to air and also streamed it isn’t.
For me the BBC, if it exists publicly funded, should be slimmed down and offer stuff not really of a commercial nature.
However it will never accept that.
In the same way that many of the 'local workers' on the Olympics site were migrant workers who happened to be staying in Hackney or Leyton.
I have said all along that proportionality and minimising collateral damage are key.
Setting numerical limits or zero collateral damage is not.
Fantastic to find a British pint in Ottawa.
Meeting Brits abroad, while delivering for people back home.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1934159828005585345?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
"From French parade (“an ostentatious display, a military display”), from parer (“to beautify, prepare, take pride in”) + -ade probably under influence from earlier Italian parata (“preparation, a military parade, an ostentatious display”) and Latin magnō parātū (“with great preparation”)".
If they do that, they are being just and proportional as per just war theory. Regardless of whatever number of casualties there may tragically be, casualties are a tragic fact of war which is why war should be a last resort.
But we are at that last resort and they are at war. And they are entitled to persecute that war until they achieve the unconditional surrender of Hamas as a military objective. As long as they minimise (not avoid entirely) civilian casualties, without prejuding the achievement of that objective, it is just and proportionate.
Some people seem to think that seeking the unconditional surrender of Hamas is going too far. That has never been just war theory. Never.
The transmission system could be funded via general taxation.
However, as I used to discuss Heathener I’d be happy for it to exist in its current form but compete for its funding with other media organisations it is currently competing for viewers, listeners and clicks. Be that subscription or ads, for example. I suspect Nadine Dorries would have gone down this type of route.
The licence fee is currently under review so now is the time to review what the BBC does in a very changed market.
BREAKING: The head of Iran's intelligence agency and his deputy were killed in Israeli strikes today, the state-owned Iranian news agency Tasnin has reported.
Iran has officially confirmed the deaths of IRGC intelligence corps commander
General Mohammad Kazemi and his deputy, General Hassan Mohaqiq.
The pair were killed in an Israeli strike on their headquarters today.
Supercharge it. Fund it to the hilt, send it out to sow its wild oats in the global market, like the CCP does with TikTok, ensure it propagandises British products and brands incessantly. Essentially, use it as a mixture of nice little earner and arm of British soft power.
Along with sports, and British royalty, and a lingering sense of “British poshness”, the BBC is the most powerful force for British soft power, and like all those it can be used to
1. Make lots of money
And
2. Project our opinions and values, if used wisely
Strictly, Dr Who and football just ain't my bag.
After the pity parade yesterday they might agree
There are certainly British politicians and media commentators who would prefer to be on one side or other of the American cultural-political wars rather than deal with more British issues.
Anyone babbling on about abortion, one way or another, is an example.
No, what the BBC needs is different channels. It has a BBC Farsi service, and a Pashtu service. Why not a BBC woke service, and BBC non-woke? Go after both markets. The woke channel gets the News Quiz, Attenborough and Gary Lineker, the non-woke one gets David Starkey, Mrs Brown’s boys and Laura Kuenssburg.
It's looking clear that the Israelis have got total air superiority over Iran.
Another Iranian leader dead. Israeli jets flying unimpeded in Iranian air space. Iran impotently lobbing a few missiles at civilian buildings while Israel degrades their military.
Israel have the upper hand and will never have a better opportunity than this to push on, and push hard, and push fast.
Given they had ads on BBC News, BBC podcasts etc outside the UK and ads on UK TV, the argument about the BBC can't carry ads is somewhat redundant now.
That is just the market nothing to do with wokeness.
The news, especially local news and politics, should be more than just churnalism recycling lobbyists and pressure groups recent press releases.
There is a proposal to add the licence fee to council tax. Not sure if it has legs or not. Personally I think we pay a lot anyway and adding extra when it is going up by 5% for the next 5 years won’t be tenable.
I get that some people value the BBC. I think many don’t.
Also the prosecutions under the single justice procedure of people, especially poor women or people with mental health issues over not having a licence is appalling.
https://x.com/kirkkorner/status/1899052308467519972?s=61
Some are good, some terrible.
1. Season 2 has saved me from a terrible tv drama drought, after The Last of Us turned into awful woke nonsense and Department Q turned out to be cliched drivel. It’s GOOD
But also
2. It’s an excellent & enlightening insight into the whole Iranian Israeli struggle. It dramatises exactly what we’re seeing now. Mossad on the streets of Tehran assassinating top Iranians. In season 2 they literally go after the head of the IRG - the guy Israel just slotted in real life
Expected to be much worse in a week is the interesting comment.
https://x.com/aliostad/status/1934342907571368058?s=61
I don't think comments like Oracle's suggesting that Iran are resisting well and the Israelis need an off ramp are going to age well.
How can they better and more proportionately (realistically) achieve the objective?
Without sacrificing what we agree is a legitimate objective?
I was chatting with these folks today
https://www.kalebcoopercontracting.co.uk/meat
Their next big idea in "farm to fork" is to add What3Words to each pack, so you can see which field your pork chops grew up in
Iran appears to be struggling to get as many missiles away today. If theyre running short on launchers or the takedowns are giving them command and control logistics issues they'll need a different strategy.
You just got me thinking and I wondered where Chicxulub registered on the Richter scale. And, it turns out, they reckon it (the subsequent earthquake) was an 11.
https://iafi.org/chicxulub-asteroid-tsunami-megaripples/#:~:text=Modelling of this monstrous tsunami,megaearthquake triggered by the collision.
My guess is a sped up version of Russia 1990-2008: they ditch the clerics and the theocracy, there are a few years of secular semi-democracy and capitalism, then the Persian nationalists start to get a grip on power. Eventually becoming an Erdogan style quasi-dictatorship.
Persian nationalist Iran is probably better for the West than Shia Islamist Iran, but possibly worse for Kurds and Arabs, equally hostile to Saudi, and likely not a big friend of Israel either .