The genius of frequently stating different objectives for the war is you're bound to be able to look back at one such comment and say you achieved all your objectives.
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
The more experience you have of life the less likely you are to celebrate the death of any human being. Hegseth is an utterly loathsome and evil individual. I look from the Iranian regime to the Trump/Netanyahu cabal and frankly I hope they all lose. I have no 'side' in this war.
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
Since when has flying jets around the airspace above an evil regime bombing random stuff ever led to that land being ruled significantly better?
Sky suggesting Israel have special forces on the ground in Iran
Pete called the win earlier. I thought it would be a great deal harder.
I get the impression that the IDF have smashed this. Trump and Pete have simply ridden pillion. Hacking traffic management cameras to identify where to locate the bad guys is bloody clever.
I understand they have been embedded in Iran for years and it would explain why Israel took out Khamenei in daylight
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
We're desperately rooting round in the cupboard to see if there's a working boat we can rustle up.
Putin has issued a decree setting the size of his army, including civilian personnel, at nearly two and a half million people, of whom one and a half million are military personnel.
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
We're desperately rooting round in the cupboard to see if there's a working boat we can rustle up.
HMS Dragon isn't ready yet, and won't be until next weekend. Pathetic.
In the Falklands War we got a whole task force off in 72 hours.
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
Since when has flying jets around the airspace above an evil regime bombing random stuff ever led to that land being ruled significantly better?
Since the 1940s.
Did you mean to append 'it's always proved to be otherwise' ?
No.
How odd!
I'd be very interested as to what you might make of the various air power deployments since 1940 (your chosen date). However let's leave out Germany and Japan - we can come back to them, but we'll never get beyond the first step otherwise.
So, do you have any argument other than those two cases?
Germany and Japan are pretty damn important examples, so its a bit rich to leave them out, since they're clearly why the date was chosen.
In recent years though we have seen successful bombing of Serbia, a successful bombing and invasion of Iraq, the successful bombing and overthrow of Gaddaffi.
All of those led to the liberation of people from their oppressors.
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
The more experience you have of life the less likely you are to celebrate the death of any human being. Hegseth is an utterly loathsome and evil individual. I look from the Iranian regime to the Trump/Netanyahu cabal and frankly I hope they all lose. I have no 'side' in this war.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Hegseth reportedly claiming that the torpedoing of the Iranian destroyer is the first such act since WW2. The Argentinians might want to correct him.
“ The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War Two. Like in that war, back when we were still the War Department. We are fighting to win."
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
So just to be clear the Reform Labour defectors were a total nothing bunch of non-entities in the end.
Allying with Trump and a home for ex Tories.
Labour is far from dead. Nor are the Tories.
To be honest I hope you are right
The extremes on right and left are not what this country needs
I agree entirely. However the country does need a government brave enough to make really harsh decisions. We simply spend too much and unwisely.
I don't imagine that anyone would argue too much with the above.
Perhaps though the following will be controversial (just random points from a longer list)
I personally think that the welfare society has run entirely our of control. It's sort of obvious that if you hand out money to the poor, that the non-poor will also come along. In my view we're about 3 stages beyond that - it's the non-poor and everyone they've ever met.
Healthcare is ridiculous too. Much of this is due to the medical profession - they conclude nothing and much treatment to me seems completely rubbish.
Our defence spend is enormous - our abilities woeful.
All of these things are widely known, and governments have simply papered over the crevasses. And they've done it with Blue Peter style sticky-back taxes.
The country cannot afford the benefit bill, pensions for all, the triple lock, WFA, 2 child cap removal, paying WASPI women to name a few
The next government has to concentrate on NEETS, tuition fees, and helping those who do work hard, but also has to find billions for defence
Anyone who can produce an honest and frank manifesto on these subjects needs to be elected
The truth is all Governments have struggled with the significant demographic shift of recent times and whether we like it or not, the £300 billion thrown at mitigating Covid has gone on to the national debt, the interest on which soaks up a not inconsiderable amount of spending and revenue.
I do agree we need some honesty on the whole issue and that's been lacking from all parties. There's a political truism being honest gets you nowhere and telling people what they don't want to hear even less.
The prevailing sentiment will be "as long as I don't have to pay or suffer any loss to services, I'll support it" while those set to lose out will shout long and loud.
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
Whilst we should have beefed up defences there as this was very likely to happen and has been building for some time I find it a bit rich for European countries like Cyprus to be whining when they would be quite happy to exclude us from defence purchasing deals unless we paid in. What are Cyprus offering in defence of Europe in Ukraine, and Greece for that matter. We also have deployments in Estonia and Norway, should we be shifting everything to the med when the Greek Airforce can provide resources. I’m sure British jets from Cyprus are the ones who are flying over Jordan etc to help defend and I seem to recall our reconnaissance aircraft were watching the mid east for many countries benefit. It’s not like we are doing nothing.
I do however get the feeling that people like Starmer and Reeves (and a lot of politicians of all stripes) are totally disconnected from the value of Defence. To them it’s a bit of a nebulous concept, they know we have soldiers and planes and boats but truly cannot see past that and that it’s the first priority of a govt. Hard to dish out benefits if you are being attacked etc.
We’ve had many years of “peace” where our military have been fighting quasi wars in Northern Ireland and wars in far away countries and they have lost all real fear and so don’t prioritise defence as they should.
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
We're desperately rooting round in the cupboard to see if there's a working boat we can rustle up.
We've neglected our defence for a long time in favour of playing tag a long with the Americans, having delusions of great power status.
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
I am pleased the Ayatollah is dead. I am rather depressed that a school full of little girls are dead.
I think we all now understand your position. Do we need it to be reinforced every five minutes?
Since he’s persuading absolutely no one else, Occam’s Razor suggests that there’s only one person left that he desperately needs to convince.
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
Since when has flying jets around the airspace above an evil regime bombing random stuff ever led to that land being ruled significantly better?
Since the 1940s.
Did you mean to append 'it's always proved to be otherwise' ?
No.
How odd!
I'd be very interested as to what you might make of the various air power deployments since 1940 (your chosen date). However let's leave out Germany and Japan - we can come back to them, but we'll never get beyond the first step otherwise.
So, do you have any argument other than those two cases?
Germany and Japan are pretty damn important examples, so its a bit rich to leave them out, since they're clearly why the date was chosen.
In recent years though we have seen successful bombing of Serbia, a successful bombing and invasion of Iraq, the successful bombing and overthrow of Gaddaffi.
All of those led to the liberation of people from their oppressors.
So yes - I agree - Germany and Japan are important examples, but I'm happy that you see that they are complicated too.
I really can't see anything good about the Serbian example, Iraq just helped reduce army casualties, and Libya is a complete dogs dinner to this day.
So, (admittedly with the constraint, and hats off for happily debating along those lines) it seems a fairly weak case.
(Japan and Germany - happy to engage, but perhaps not the forum)
Cyprus High Commissioner Kyriacos Kouros sounding furious about the lack of British action to defend RAF Akrotiri, telling @skynews: 'Greek forces are present on the island, the French are coming - the least we expect is the British are present'
They didn’t ask us for help. They are playing anti UK politics. Stop helping them get rid of our basis Willy, you traitor.
So you don’t think the Cypriots have a right to be pissed off ?
They’re stuck with bases which end up targets anytime GB is involved in ME action . This screws their tourism industry and puts the local population at risk . Starmer took too long to clarify that the US wouldn’t be using the bases there and the UK should have had its assets there already .
Thank heavens the Greeks and French have come to help .
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
Since when has flying jets around the airspace above an evil regime bombing random stuff ever led to that land being ruled significantly better?
Since the 1940s.
Did you mean to append 'it's always proved to be otherwise' ?
No.
How odd!
I'd be very interested as to what you might make of the various air power deployments since 1940 (your chosen date). However let's leave out Germany and Japan - we can come back to them, but we'll never get beyond the first step otherwise.
So, do you have any argument other than those two cases?
Germany and Japan are pretty damn important examples, so its a bit rich to leave them out, since they're clearly why the date was chosen.
In recent years though we have seen successful bombing of Serbia, a successful bombing and invasion of Iraq, the successful bombing and overthrow of Gaddaffi.
All of those led to the liberation of people from their oppressors.
So yes - I agree - Germany and Japan are important examples, but I'm happy that you see that they are complicated too.
I really can't see anything good about the Serbian example, Iraq just helped reduce army casualties, and Libya is a complete dogs dinner to this day.
So, (admittedly with the constraint, and hats off for happily debating along those lines) it seems a fairly weak case.
(Japan and Germany - happy to engage, but perhaps not the forum)
How do you not see anything good about the Serbian example? Kosovo is free and safe thanks to our bombing Serbia.
As for Libya, so what if its a dogs dinner? Gaddafi is gone. That is great.
Forced choice between having the Iranian Regime survive or a dogs dinner, I would choose a dogs dinner every time. That would be a huge improvement.
Obviously a free and civilised democratic nation would be preferable, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of improvements.
Putin has issued a decree setting the size of his army, including civilian personnel, at nearly two and a half million people, of whom one and a half million are military personnel.
Will they be using holograms to make up any shortfall, I wonder.
Cyprus High Commissioner Kyriacos Kouros sounding furious about the lack of British action to defend RAF Akrotiri, telling @skynews: 'Greek forces are present on the island, the French are coming - the least we expect is the British are present'
They didn’t ask us for help. They are playing anti UK politics. Stop helping them get rid of our basis Willy, you traitor.
So you don’t think the Cypriots have a right to be pissed off ?
They’re stuck with bases which end up targets anytime GB is involved in ME action . This screws their tourism industry and puts the local population at risk . Starmer took too long to clarify that the US wouldn’t be using the bases there and the UK should have had its assets there already .
Thank heavens the Greeks and French have come to help .
MoonRabbit seems consistently to take a pro-Turkish and anti-Greek view, which is her prerogative I suppose
But it's the Greeks who have defended the island today, and Erdoğan certainly wouldn't be interested in defending from Hezbollah drones aimed at Akrotiri.
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
We're desperately rooting round in the cupboard to see if there's a working boat we can rustle up.
HMS Dragon isn't ready yet, and won't be until next weekend. Pathetic.
In the Falklands War we got a whole task force off in 72 hours.
I have the vision of the sailors turning up and a bloke with fag hanging out his mouth, big drag, well you see Barry can't come until next week to sort the toilets out and Trev is in Alicante on a golf trip so the painting isn't finished. I did my back out in 07, so I can't do it.....
Its something I really started to notice now in the UK compared to Asia. Asia, I consistently see when stuff breaks, its gets fixed ASAP. In China they fixed shit in my hotel within 2hrs, I saw an escalator break in Shangai at 7pm, I went into an art gallery, came out 2hrs later, a blokes had fixed it and where just tidying away their equipment.
Then I fly back to the UK, get in at 6am, multiple toilets broken....at an international airport. Given first flight in, those bogs had been broken from at least the previous day.
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
Since when has flying jets around the airspace above an evil regime bombing random stuff ever led to that land being ruled significantly better?
Since the 1940s.
Did you mean to append 'it's always proved to be otherwise' ?
No.
How odd!
I'd be very interested as to what you might make of the various air power deployments since 1940 (your chosen date). However let's leave out Germany and Japan - we can come back to them, but we'll never get beyond the first step otherwise.
So, do you have any argument other than those two cases?
Germany and Japan are pretty damn important examples, so its a bit rich to leave them out, since they're clearly why the date was chosen.
In recent years though we have seen successful bombing of Serbia, a successful bombing and invasion of Iraq, the successful bombing and overthrow of Gaddaffi.
All of those led to the liberation of people from their oppressors.
So yes - I agree - Germany and Japan are important examples, but I'm happy that you see that they are complicated too.
I really can't see anything good about the Serbian example, Iraq just helped reduce army casualties, and Libya is a complete dogs dinner to this day.
So, (admittedly with the constraint, and hats off for happily debating along those lines) it seems a fairly weak case.
(Japan and Germany - happy to engage, but perhaps not the forum)
How do you not see anything good about the Serbian example? Kosovo is free and safe thanks to our bombing Serbia.
As for Libya, so what if its a dogs dinner? Gaddafi is gone. That is great.
Forced choice between having the Iranian Regime survive or a dogs dinner, I would choose a dogs dinner every time. That would be a huge improvement.
Obviously a free and civilised democratic nation would be preferable, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of improvements.
Serbia - you may well have a good point there. I've never been to Serbia, but I was recently in Croatia and that nation is doing well. So perhaps the chaos did produce something better.
Let's turn the discussion on its tail though. What merits do you see from bombing Iran?
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
I am pleased the Ayatollah is dead. I am rather depressed that a school full of little girls are dead.
I think we all now understand your position. Do we need it to be reinforced every five minutes?
Has the school come out of passive aggressive quotation marks now?
Was it an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps school for girls?
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
Since when has flying jets around the airspace above an evil regime bombing random stuff ever led to that land being ruled significantly better?
Since the 1940s.
Did you mean to append 'it's always proved to be otherwise' ?
No.
How odd!
I'd be very interested as to what you might make of the various air power deployments since 1940 (your chosen date). However let's leave out Germany and Japan - we can come back to them, but we'll never get beyond the first step otherwise.
So, do you have any argument other than those two cases?
Germany and Japan are pretty damn important examples, so its a bit rich to leave them out, since they're clearly why the date was chosen.
In recent years though we have seen successful bombing of Serbia, a successful bombing and invasion of Iraq, the successful bombing and overthrow of Gaddaffi.
All of those led to the liberation of people from their oppressors.
So yes - I agree - Germany and Japan are important examples, but I'm happy that you see that they are complicated too.
I really can't see anything good about the Serbian example, Iraq just helped reduce army casualties, and Libya is a complete dogs dinner to this day.
So, (admittedly with the constraint, and hats off for happily debating along those lines) it seems a fairly weak case.
(Japan and Germany - happy to engage, but perhaps not the forum)
How do you not see anything good about the Serbian example? Kosovo is free and safe thanks to our bombing Serbia.
As for Libya, so what if its a dogs dinner? Gaddafi is gone. That is great.
Forced choice between having the Iranian Regime survive or a dogs dinner, I would choose a dogs dinner every time. That would be a huge improvement.
Obviously a free and civilised democratic nation would be preferable, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of improvements.
Serbia - you may well have a good point there. I've never been to Serbia, but I was recently in Croatia and that nation is doing well. So perhaps the chaos did produce something better.
Let's turn the discussion on its tail though. What merits do you see from bombing Iran?
Many.
1: Iran is the source of much evil around the world, including being the money and arms behind Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has funded them to the tune of billions. If Iran is too busy defending itself it can not be supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. See the recent announcement by Lebanon that they are going to disarm and remove Hezbollah, good luck to them with that if they can do that it would be huge.
2: Iran was currently supplying vast forces of Shahed weaponry to Russia to kill Ukranians. If Iran is struggling to defend itself it can no longer assist Russia, which helps Ukraine.
3: The regime was already pretty broke and struggling. Every bit the weaponry is degraded makes it less of a threat and will make rebuilding by them even harder.
4: The regime was already extremely unpopular on the streets, but has the guns and is willing to slaughter tens of thousands of their own people in cold blood. Destroy their guns and the people have more of a fighting chance to free themselves.
Lots of potential upsides from fighting the Mullahs. Rather take the fight to them, than let them direct where the fighting should occur.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
Absolutely.
People have got so used to domestic peace and order that they no longer even notice that they rely on it.
Some friends of mine have known real disorder (the collapse of the Soviet Union, Amin then Obote in Uganda, the aftermath of the first Gulf War in Iraq, the long Civil War in Sudan, etc). None of them want to see that sort of chaos for anyone.
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
I am pleased the Ayatollah is dead. I am rather depressed that a school full of little girls are dead.
I think we all now understand your position. Do we need it to be reinforced every five minutes?
Has the school come out of passive aggressive quotation marks now?
Was it an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps school for girls?
Full of girls whose own government would have happily executed for wearing the hijab incorrectly.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
Absolutely.
People have got so used to domestic peace and order that they no longer even notice that they rely on it.
Some friends of mine have known real disorder (the collapse of the Soviet Union, Amin then Obote in Uganda, the aftermath of the first Gulf War in Iraq, the long Civil War in Sudan, etc). None of them want to see that sort of chaos for anyone.
Your examples prove my point.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was fantastic. It enabled Eastern Europe to be free and rid of their Soviet oppressors.
Yes instability has costs, but those costs are worth paying.
I am curious what percentage of Eastern Europe now regrets the collapse of the Soviet Union and would gladly hand back their liberty to be under the yoke of the Soviets?
Two minutes of Tony Benn speaking in the Commons before the Iraq war.
I would struggle to agree with Tony Benn on any political matter but that was a great speech and highly apposite for these times. His articulacy puts the current House of Commons to shame, it really does.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
When have you ever had to contemplate that decision and whether it is best for your family’s survival.
They were interviewing a few Iranians on the Beeb the other day who all made the point that whilst they didn’t like the oppression they could grind out a way to live and be relatively happy and safe, in chaos they have no safety, security or stability.
Until you have to make that decision then I find it bizarre that you post with such absolute conviction on that choice.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
You might miss the Rule of Law though.
Law should always be pragmatic and flexible. That was always the English way, to have a flexible and amendable law, changeable by Parliament, not a hard and fast codified one.
The rigid dogmatic institutionalisation of "The Law" (TM) over and above flexibility and politics is a rather modern and not a positive invention.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
You might miss the Rule of Law though.
A good moment to quote one of Cyclefree's favourite speeches (and mine)
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
Since when has flying jets around the airspace above an evil regime bombing random stuff ever led to that land being ruled significantly better?
Since the 1940s.
Did you mean to append 'it's always proved to be otherwise' ?
No.
How odd!
I'd be very interested as to what you might make of the various air power deployments since 1940 (your chosen date). However let's leave out Germany and Japan - we can come back to them, but we'll never get beyond the first step otherwise.
So, do you have any argument other than those two cases?
Germany and Japan are pretty damn important examples, so its a bit rich to leave them out, since they're clearly why the date was chosen.
In recent years though we have seen successful bombing of Serbia, a successful bombing and invasion of Iraq, the successful bombing and overthrow of Gaddaffi.
All of those led to the liberation of people from their oppressors.
So yes - I agree - Germany and Japan are important examples, but I'm happy that you see that they are complicated too.
I really can't see anything good about the Serbian example, Iraq just helped reduce army casualties, and Libya is a complete dogs dinner to this day.
So, (admittedly with the constraint, and hats off for happily debating along those lines) it seems a fairly weak case.
(Japan and Germany - happy to engage, but perhaps not the forum)
How do you not see anything good about the Serbian example? Kosovo is free and safe thanks to our bombing Serbia.
As for Libya, so what if its a dogs dinner? Gaddafi is gone. That is great.
Forced choice between having the Iranian Regime survive or a dogs dinner, I would choose a dogs dinner every time. That would be a huge improvement.
Obviously a free and civilised democratic nation would be preferable, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of improvements.
Serbia - you may well have a good point there. I've never been to Serbia, but I was recently in Croatia and that nation is doing well. So perhaps the chaos did produce something better.
Let's turn the discussion on its tail though. What merits do you see from bombing Iran?
Many.
1: Iran is the source of much evil around the world, including being the money and arms behind Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has funded them to the tune of billions. If Iran is too busy defending itself it can not be supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. See the recent announcement by Lebanon that they are going to disarm and remove Hezbollah, good luck to them with that if they can do that it would be huge.
2: Iran was currently supplying vast forces of Shahed weaponry to Russia to kill Ukranians. If Iran is struggling to defend itself it can no longer assist Russia, which helps Ukraine.
3: The regime was already pretty broke and struggling. Every bit the weaponry is degraded makes it less of a threat and will make rebuilding by them even harder.
4: The regime was already extremely unpopular on the streets, but has the guns and is willing to slaughter tens of thousands of their own people in cold blood. Destroy their guns and the people have more of a fighting chance to free themselves.
Lots of potential upsides from fighting the Mullahs. Rather take the fight to them, than let them direct where the fighting should occur.
The United States could be fighting for freedom, although this should have been done during the uprising of Iranian people. Trump encouraged their struggle for democracy but did not have their back, and tens of thousands were slaughtered by this terrible regime. Now, too late, America has been bounced into this war by Israel.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
Absolutely.
People have got so used to domestic peace and order that they no longer even notice that they rely on it.
Some friends of mine have known real disorder (the collapse of the Soviet Union, Amin then Obote in Uganda, the aftermath of the first Gulf War in Iraq, the long Civil War in Sudan, etc). None of them want to see that sort of chaos for anyone.
Your examples prove my point.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was fantastic. It enabled Eastern Europe to be free and rid of their Soviet oppressors.
Yes instability has costs, but those costs are worth paying.
I am curious what percentage of Eastern Europe now regrets the collapse of the Soviet Union and would gladly hand back their liberty to be under the yoke of the Soviets?
Quite a few people in Bulgaria and Romania, I believe
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
Yes, I know you won't but what you want or advocate (and what I want or advocate) is immaterial.
If you are in a Tehran suburb and you've survived the IGRC thus far, you have a job and can provide enough for your family, would that certainty not seem preferable to the disorder of anarchy with no job, no food, no security and no money where you can be attacked in the street or have your house broken into?
This is what sometimes happens when dictatorships fall - you don't get freedom and liberty on day one, what you get is anarchy and chaos, death and destruction. That isn't an argument FOR dictatorship, it's a recognition of what happens in some societies when the restraints of terror and fear are removed - scores are settled, the strong bully the weak, the frail and old suffer.
As we saw in Iraq, it can take a lot of time and death before order is restored, a new Police force trained, new institutions created and new laws passed.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
When have you ever had to contemplate that decision and whether it is best for your family’s survival.
They were interviewing a few Iranians on the Beeb the other day who all made the point that whilst they didn’t like the oppression they could grind out a way to live and be relatively happy and safe, in chaos they have no safety, security or stability.
Until you have to make that decision then I find it bizarre that you post with such absolute conviction on that choice.
We all post with convictions here based on our own principles.
My principles have always consistently involved respecting freedom and liberty and opposing authoritarianism.
Some may gladly yield to the yoke of the oppressor for an easier life. Many do not. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians, if not millions, braved the streets recently to show they want liberty despite knowing what the regime would do to them. Tens of thousands lost their lives in a brutal onslaught by their dictators.
For you to imply that only kowtowing to dictators is the acceptable choice is not appropriate.
Two minutes of Tony Benn speaking in the Commons before the Iraq war.
Benn was a great politician. I'm a Tory. I have many of his books, and I value them.
I once asked Tony Benn to sign one of his books for a friend and he was kind enough to write a whole paragraph.
It was completely illegible but I remember he used red ink.
A student friend of mine was standing in the rain in Westminster waiting for a bus back in the Eighties, getting drenched. A man came out of an office nearby and flagged down a taxi. He asked her where she was going, and offered her a lift. It was Tony Benn, and they had a lovely chat on the way.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
Yes, I know you won't but what you want or advocate (and what I want or advocate) is immaterial.
If you are in a Tehran suburb and you've survived the IGRC thus far, you have a job and can provide enough for your family, would that certainty not seem preferable to the disorder of anarchy with no job, no food, no security and no money where you can be attacked in the street or have your house broken into?
This is what sometimes happens when dictatorships fall - you don't get freedom and liberty on day one, what you get is anarchy and chaos, death and destruction. That isn't an argument FOR dictatorship, it's a recognition of what happens in some societies when the restraints of terror and fear are removed - scores are settled, the strong bully the weak, the frail and old suffer.
As we saw in Iraq, it can take a lot of time and death before order is restored, a new Police force trained, new institutions created and new laws passed.
No it would not be preferable.
People were on the street literally only a few weeks ago to say so.
Good luck to them! I stand with the people of Iran who want freedom, not the people of Iran who want order.
He’s talking about the war as if it’s some video game . He’s also a white nationalist and misogynist.
He was utterly shocking and both my wife and I were disgusted with his 'toast' comment
I really do not know how this unfolds but he is simply a terrible advert for a US politician
Why?
The Iranian regime have just brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
Them being toast is something to "rejoice" about, not be disgusted at.
It was the language of hate and quite disturbing
I will never rejoice at anyone suggesting someone else is 'toast'
I dunno Big G. I respect your posts and all but I’m sure, in anachronistic parlance, you would have celebrated Mr Hitler and his cohorts as “being toast” should you have been about in 1945.
To be honest I wouldn't have used that language
I was around in 1945 though quite young, but it would be simple relief that evil had ended
America is seeking to end the evil of the Iranian regime.
We should be supporting them to that end.
Since when has flying jets around the airspace above an evil regime bombing random stuff ever led to that land being ruled significantly better?
Since the 1940s.
Did you mean to append 'it's always proved to be otherwise' ?
No.
How odd!
I'd be very interested as to what you might make of the various air power deployments since 1940 (your chosen date). However let's leave out Germany and Japan - we can come back to them, but we'll never get beyond the first step otherwise.
So, do you have any argument other than those two cases?
Germany and Japan are pretty damn important examples, so its a bit rich to leave them out, since they're clearly why the date was chosen.
In recent years though we have seen successful bombing of Serbia, a successful bombing and invasion of Iraq, the successful bombing and overthrow of Gaddaffi.
All of those led to the liberation of people from their oppressors.
So yes - I agree - Germany and Japan are important examples, but I'm happy that you see that they are complicated too.
I really can't see anything good about the Serbian example, Iraq just helped reduce army casualties, and Libya is a complete dogs dinner to this day.
So, (admittedly with the constraint, and hats off for happily debating along those lines) it seems a fairly weak case.
(Japan and Germany - happy to engage, but perhaps not the forum)
How do you not see anything good about the Serbian example? Kosovo is free and safe thanks to our bombing Serbia.
As for Libya, so what if its a dogs dinner? Gaddafi is gone. That is great.
Forced choice between having the Iranian Regime survive or a dogs dinner, I would choose a dogs dinner every time. That would be a huge improvement.
Obviously a free and civilised democratic nation would be preferable, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of improvements.
Serbia - you may well have a good point there. I've never been to Serbia, but I was recently in Croatia and that nation is doing well. So perhaps the chaos did produce something better.
Let's turn the discussion on its tail though. What merits do you see from bombing Iran?
Many.
1: Iran is the source of much evil around the world, including being the money and arms behind Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has funded them to the tune of billions. If Iran is too busy defending itself it can not be supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. See the recent announcement by Lebanon that they are going to disarm and remove Hezbollah, good luck to them with that if they can do that it would be huge.
2: Iran was currently supplying vast forces of Shahed weaponry to Russia to kill Ukranians. If Iran is struggling to defend itself it can no longer assist Russia, which helps Ukraine.
3: The regime was already pretty broke and struggling. Every bit the weaponry is degraded makes it less of a threat and will make rebuilding by them even harder.
4: The regime was already extremely unpopular on the streets, but has the guns and is willing to slaughter tens of thousands of their own people in cold blood. Destroy their guns and the people have more of a fighting chance to free themselves.
Lots of potential upsides from fighting the Mullahs. Rather take the fight to them, than let them direct where the fighting should occur.
3 is just padding
1&2 - I agree. Should there be a switch available that says 'Ayatollahs Off' then I'd switch it to off. 4 - The regime is both popular and unpopular - impossible to discern the degree.
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
We're desperately rooting round in the cupboard to see if there's a working boat we can rustle up.
HMS Dragon isn't ready yet, and won't be until next weekend. Pathetic.
In the Falklands War we got a whole task force off in 72 hours.
I have the vision of the sailors turning up and a bloke with fag hanging out his mouth, big drag, well you see Barry can't come until next week to sort the toilets out and Trev is in Alicante on a golf trip so the painting isn't finished. I did my back out in 07, so I can't do it.....
Its something I really started to notice now in the UK compared to Asia. Asia, I consistently see when stuff breaks, its gets fixed ASAP. In China they fixed shit in my hotel within 2hrs, I saw an escalator break in Shangai at 7pm, I went into an art gallery, came out 2hrs later, a blokes had fixed it and where just tidying away their equipment.
Then I fly back to the UK, get in at 6am, multiple toilets broken....at an international airport. Given first flight in, those bogs had been broken from at least the previous day.
One of the reasons all the best chips are made in Taiwanese FABs is the astonishing work ethic. The Taiwanese themselves call it "eating shit" - ie they are prepared to eat shit, and work all hours, if the pay is good (which it is, in the chip industry, to an extent the chip engineers have become an elite)
In practise this means engineers are expected to be available 24/7. If a machine at the FAB goes wrong at 4am the relevant staff are called at home and they have to be there within 30 minutes and get it fixed immediately
TSMC have complained that they find it very hard to duplicate this work ethic elsewhere, eg the new FABs in Arizona
If Starmer thinks Khan is a threat to him staying Labour leader and PM he will use his allies on the NEC to block him getting a seat before the next general election just as he did to Burnham
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
We're desperately rooting round in the cupboard to see if there's a working boat we can rustle up.
HMS Dragon isn't ready yet, and won't be until next weekend. Pathetic.
In the Falklands War we got a whole task force off in 72 hours.
I have the vision of the sailors turning up and a bloke with fag hanging out his mouth, big drag, well you see Barry can't come until next week to sort the toilets out and Trev is in Alicante on a golf trip so the painting isn't finished. I did my back out in 07, so I can't do it.....
Its something I really started to notice now in the UK compared to Asia. Asia, I consistently see when stuff breaks, its gets fixed ASAP. In China they fixed shit in my hotel within 2hrs, I saw an escalator break in Shangai at 7pm, I went into an art gallery, came out 2hrs later, a blokes had fixed it and where just tidying away their equipment.
Then I fly back to the UK, get in at 6am, multiple toilets broken....at an international airport. Given first flight in, those bogs had been broken from at least the previous day.
Trouble is, fixing stuff costs money. Fixing stuff quickly, rather than in three weeks' time when I can fit you in, costs more money.
And for a long time now, avoiding spending money has been the British way. How much that is owners wanting to extract every penny before the business collapses, how much it is customers having a preference for low-cost-but-shoddy, I don't know. Shame, because it's a problem that is biting the country increasingly painfully on the bum.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
You might miss the Rule of Law though.
Law should always be pragmatic and flexible. That was always the English way, to have a flexible and amendable law, changeable by Parliament, not a hard and fast codified one.
The rigid dogmatic institutionalisation of "The Law" (TM) over and above flexibility and politics is a rather modern and not a positive invention.
Good news on that front - a little bird tells me the government is going to trial cyclists/horse riders being allowed to pass through red lights, as long as they give way to pedestrians (like a zebra crossing).
Exactly the kind of flexibility we need - red lights for pedal cycles was always a dreadful constriction on #freedom #magnacarta
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
When have you ever had to contemplate that decision and whether it is best for your family’s survival.
They were interviewing a few Iranians on the Beeb the other day who all made the point that whilst they didn’t like the oppression they could grind out a way to live and be relatively happy and safe, in chaos they have no safety, security or stability.
Until you have to make that decision then I find it bizarre that you post with such absolute conviction on that choice.
We all post with convictions here based on our own principles.
My principles have always consistently involved respecting freedom and liberty and opposing authoritarianism.
Some may gladly yield to the yoke of the oppressor for an easier life. Many do not. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians, if not millions, braved the streets recently to show they want liberty despite knowing what the regime would do to them. Tens of thousands lost their lives in a brutal onslaught by their dictators.
For you to imply that only kowtowing to dictators is the acceptable choice is not appropriate.
But your certainty on all these matters is based on no real experience. You aren’t going to be on the ground in Iran, nor might your children. You aren’t making decisions to send your troops somewhere and having to live with their deaths or life changing injuries.
You don’t have to wake up in post war Iraq where your business is gone, you have trouble getting regular food and don’t know if your children are going to get caught up in an IED explosion on the way to school because the country has broken down into chaos and areas are ruled by militias with various political and sectarian beefs that might not favour you.
So to be so absolutely certain that this is the right thing to do, to remove a functioning p, if evil and repressive government, is strange and would probably benefit from a little nuance. Whilst a lot of Iraqis now have the same or better life, hundreds of thousands died before that was possible.
If Starmer thinks Khan is a threat to him staying Labour leader and PM he will use his allies on the NEC to block him getting a seat before the next general election just as he did to Burnham
Everybody is a threat to Starmer because everybody is more competent than him.
If Starmer thinks Khan is a threat to him staying Labour leader and PM he will use his allies on the NEC to block him getting a seat before the next general election just as he did to Burnham
Like Iran and the Iranian people according to Whisky Pete, Starmer is toast.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
You might miss the Rule of Law though.
Law should always be pragmatic and flexible. That was always the English way, to have a flexible and amendable law, changeable by Parliament, not a hard and fast codified one.
The rigid dogmatic institutionalisation of "The Law" (TM) over and above flexibility and politics is a rather modern and not a positive invention.
Good news on that front - a little bird tells me the government is going to trial cyclists/horse riders being allowed to pass through red lights, as long as they give way to pedestrians (like a zebra crossing).
Exactly the kind of flexibility we need - red lights for pedal cycles was always a dreadful constriction on #freedom #magnacarta
Should be the same for drivers turning left on a red light too.
So long as its clear that whoever has a green light has right of way and if a Darwin Award winner who can't even be bothered to strap on a helmet goes through a red light and gets taken out of the gene pool by a vehicle which crossed a green light, then it should be categorically the Darwin Award winners fault that they are no longer breathing.
I can say I cannot ever recall watching CH4 for anything
But if you and @Roger sing its praises then it must be of the left
Put it this way. It is no GBNews.
PB Tories would class it as left wing. I find it appropriately critical of Labour, Conservatives, Dem and GOP.
Their journalists and presenters are old school, probably left leaning but not unduly uncritical of Labour or Dem.
I find they report the news rather than opine like Mason and Kuennsberg tend to do.
It's a little left (in my view) but I always liked it as news for grown ups - people who had a basic understanding of the world and so didn't need to be spoonfed every detail, leaving more time for in depth reporting on the current situation.
It's a while since I watch it regularly though - it clashes with kids' bed and bath routine if watched live!
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
When have you ever had to contemplate that decision and whether it is best for your family’s survival.
They were interviewing a few Iranians on the Beeb the other day who all made the point that whilst they didn’t like the oppression they could grind out a way to live and be relatively happy and safe, in chaos they have no safety, security or stability.
Until you have to make that decision then I find it bizarre that you post with such absolute conviction on that choice.
We all post with convictions here based on our own principles.
My principles have always consistently involved respecting freedom and liberty and opposing authoritarianism.
Some may gladly yield to the yoke of the oppressor for an easier life. Many do not. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians, if not millions, braved the streets recently to show they want liberty despite knowing what the regime would do to them. Tens of thousands lost their lives in a brutal onslaught by their dictators.
For you to imply that only kowtowing to dictators is the acceptable choice is not appropriate.
But your certainty on all these matters is based on no real experience. You aren’t going to be on the ground in Iran, nor might your children. You aren’t making decisions to send your troops somewhere and having to live with their deaths or life changing injuries.
You don’t have to wake up in post war Iraq where your business is gone, you have trouble getting regular food and don’t know if your children are going to get caught up in an IED explosion on the way to school because the country has broken down into chaos and areas are ruled by militias with various political and sectarian beefs that might not favour you.
So to be so absolutely certain that this is the right thing to do, to remove a functioning p, if evil and repressive government, is strange and would probably benefit from a little nuance. Whilst a lot of Iraqis now have the same or better life, hundreds of thousands died before that was possible.
What about everyone else's certainty?
Far many more people are posting with certainty against the conflict than I am posting in favour of it.
Despite the Iranian public having braved the Mullahs while unarmed, many here do not wish to engage them.
I do not deny there is a cost to conflict. I simply accept that. Most things that are worth doing in this life have a cost attached.
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
We're desperately rooting round in the cupboard to see if there's a working boat we can rustle up.
HMS Dragon isn't ready yet, and won't be until next weekend. Pathetic.
In the Falklands War we got a whole task force off in 72 hours.
I have the vision of the sailors turning up and a bloke with fag hanging out his mouth, big drag, well you see Barry can't come until next week to sort the toilets out and Trev is in Alicante on a golf trip so the painting isn't finished. I did my back out in 07, so I can't do it.....
Its something I really started to notice now in the UK compared to Asia. Asia, I consistently see when stuff breaks, its gets fixed ASAP. In China they fixed shit in my hotel within 2hrs, I saw an escalator break in Shangai at 7pm, I went into an art gallery, came out 2hrs later, a blokes had fixed it and where just tidying away their equipment.
Then I fly back to the UK, get in at 6am, multiple toilets broken....at an international airport. Given first flight in, those bogs had been broken from at least the previous day.
One of the reasons all the best chips are made in Taiwanese FABs is the astonishing work ethic. The Taiwanese themselves call it "eating shit" - ie they are prepared to eat shit, and work all hours, if the pay is good (which it is, in the chip industry, to an extent the chip engineers have become an elite)
In practise this means engineers are expected to be available 24/7. If a machine at the FAB goes wrong at 4am the relevant staff are called at home and they have to be there within 30 minutes and get it fixed immediately
TSMC have complained that they find it very hard to duplicate this work ethic elsewhere, eg the new FABs in Arizona
My understanding is that if there is any earth tremors, even very very small ones, that screws the machinery in the FAB. The Tawianese don't have to be told or ordered, they just head to the FAB ASAP to fix production. It is national pride and saving face rather than perhaps much concerns over impact to GDP.
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
Whilst we should have beefed up defences there as this was very likely to happen and has been building for some time I find it a bit rich for European countries like Cyprus to be whining when they would be quite happy to exclude us from defence purchasing deals unless we paid in. What are Cyprus offering in defence of Europe in Ukraine, and Greece for that matter. We also have deployments in Estonia and Norway, should we be shifting everything to the med when the Greek Airforce can provide resources. I’m sure British jets from Cyprus are the ones who are flying over Jordan etc to help defend and I seem to recall our reconnaissance aircraft were watching the mid east for many countries benefit. It’s not like we are doing nothing.
I do however get the feeling that people like Starmer and Reeves (and a lot of politicians of all stripes) are totally disconnected from the value of Defence. To them it’s a bit of a nebulous concept, they know we have soldiers and planes and boats but truly cannot see past that and that it’s the first priority of a govt. Hard to dish out benefits if you are being attacked etc.
We’ve had many years of “peace” where our military have been fighting quasi wars in Northern Ireland and wars in far away countries and they have lost all real fear and so don’t prioritise defence as they should.
We'vé been beefing up defences for some time. Having belatedly listened to PMQ, it's clear:
Let me give a little more detail. For a number of weeks now, we have been pre-deploying our capabilities to the region. In doing so, we have been liaising very closely with the United States, as the House would have expected. Therefore, radar systems were pre-deployed, ground-based air defence was pre-deployed, counter-drone systems were pre-deployed, and F-35 jets were pre-deployed. That is why since Saturday morning, multiple F-35s and Typhoons have been in operation, not just in the middle east but across Cyprus. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-04/debates/13322AC4-D224-4407-B737-2FEB75AD5866/Engagements
I noted a RAF anti-drone unit being there a couple of weeks ago on PB.
The "look look he did not send a ship" is more characteristic of the latest episode of groping around for stuff to throw at Mr Starmer.
What more concerns me here is the utter lack of quality in any of our opposition party leaders on the Right. Kemi today was a dead parrot reading out flash cards, and Farage is .... Farage.
The gambling industry regulator risks being plunged into a conflict-of-interest row after admitting that its chief executive, Andrew Rhodes, is to take up a commercial role in the gambling sector when he steps down at the end of next month.
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
We're desperately rooting round in the cupboard to see if there's a working boat we can rustle up.
HMS Dragon isn't ready yet, and won't be until next weekend. Pathetic.
In the Falklands War we got a whole task force off in 72 hours.
I have the vision of the sailors turning up and a bloke with fag hanging out his mouth, big drag, well you see Barry can't come until next week to sort the toilets out and Trev is in Alicante on a golf trip so the painting isn't finished. I did my back out in 07, so I can't do it.....
Its something I really started to notice now in the UK compared to Asia. Asia, I consistently see when stuff breaks, its gets fixed ASAP. In China they fixed shit in my hotel within 2hrs, I saw an escalator break in Shangai at 7pm, I went into an art gallery, came out 2hrs later, a blokes had fixed it and where just tidying away their equipment.
Then I fly back to the UK, get in at 6am, multiple toilets broken....at an international airport. Given first flight in, those bogs had been broken from at least the previous day.
Trouble is, fixing stuff costs money. Fixing stuff quickly, rather than in three weeks' time when I can fit you in, costs more money.
And for a long time now, avoiding spending money has been the British way. How much that is owners wanting to extract every penny before the business collapses, how much it is customers having a preference for low-cost-but-shoddy, I don't know. Shame, because it's a problem that is biting the country increasingly painfully on the bum.
Its an attitude as well. That will do, its 4.39pm, well I won't get that done by 5pm, so I'll bodge it.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
You might miss the Rule of Law though.
Law should always be pragmatic and flexible. That was always the English way, to have a flexible and amendable law, changeable by Parliament, not a hard and fast codified one.
The rigid dogmatic institutionalisation of "The Law" (TM) over and above flexibility and politics is a rather modern and not a positive invention.
Good news on that front - a little bird tells me the government is going to trial cyclists/horse riders being allowed to pass through red lights, as long as they give way to pedestrians (like a zebra crossing).
Exactly the kind of flexibility we need - red lights for pedal cycles was always a dreadful constriction on #freedom #magnacarta
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
We're desperately rooting round in the cupboard to see if there's a working boat we can rustle up.
HMS Dragon isn't ready yet, and won't be until next weekend. Pathetic.
In the Falklands War we got a whole task force off in 72 hours.
I have the vision of the sailors turning up and a bloke with fag hanging out his mouth, big drag, well you see Barry can't come until next week to sort the toilets out and Trev is in Alicante on a golf trip so the painting isn't finished. I did my back out in 07, so I can't do it.....
Its something I really started to notice now in the UK compared to Asia. Asia, I consistently see when stuff breaks, its gets fixed ASAP. In China they fixed shit in my hotel within 2hrs, I saw an escalator break in Shangai at 7pm, I went into an art gallery, came out 2hrs later, a blokes had fixed it and where just tidying away their equipment.
Then I fly back to the UK, get in at 6am, multiple toilets broken....at an international airport. Given first flight in, those bogs had been broken from at least the previous day.
Trouble is, fixing stuff costs money. Fixing stuff quickly, rather than in three weeks' time when I can fit you in, costs more money.
And for a long time now, avoiding spending money has been the British way. How much that is owners wanting to extract every penny before the business collapses, how much it is customers having a preference for low-cost-but-shoddy, I don't know. Shame, because it's a problem that is biting the country increasingly painfully on the bum.
And you used to get Ron from maintenance to pop down with his toolkit to take a look and then he raided his cupboard of spares to get it fixed. Now you call the maintenance company, they put you in the queue, have a look, then order the part. It's probably more efficient in terms of maintenance costs, but often takes longer. And Ron probably had a way of doing a temporary fix that got it up and running if needed (partly due to things being more basic and easier to take apart - also likely bigger, costlier, uglier, less environmentally friendly in initial manufacturing footprint etc).
I can say I cannot ever recall watching CH4 for anything
But if you and @Roger sing its praises then it must be of the left
Put it this way. It is no GBNews.
PB Tories would class it as left wing. I find it appropriately critical of Labour, Conservatives, Dem and GOP.
Their journalists and presenters are old school, probably left leaning but not unduly uncritical of Labour or Dem.
I find they report the news rather than opine like Mason and Kuennsberg tend to do.
It's a little left (in my view) but I always liked it as news for grown ups - people who had a basic understanding of the world and so didn't need to be spoonfed every detail, leaving more time for in depth reporting on the current situation.
It's a while since I watch it regularly though - it clashes with kids' bed and bath routine if watched live!
The other good thing about Channel 4 News is that they credit viewers with intelligence and attention span by featuring relatively long reports in depth on fewer subjects.
The old Newsnight was as good, but now it is just another bunch of talking heads in a studio.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
Yes, I know you won't but what you want or advocate (and what I want or advocate) is immaterial.
If you are in a Tehran suburb and you've survived the IGRC thus far, you have a job and can provide enough for your family, would that certainty not seem preferable to the disorder of anarchy with no job, no food, no security and no money where you can be attacked in the street or have your house broken into?
This is what sometimes happens when dictatorships fall - you don't get freedom and liberty on day one, what you get is anarchy and chaos, death and destruction. That isn't an argument FOR dictatorship, it's a recognition of what happens in some societies when the restraints of terror and fear are removed - scores are settled, the strong bully the weak, the frail and old suffer.
As we saw in Iraq, it can take a lot of time and death before order is restored, a new Police force trained, new institutions created and new laws passed.
No it would not be preferable.
People were on the street literally only a few weeks ago to say so.
Good luck to them! I stand with the people of Iran who want freedom, not the people of Iran who want order.
Yes and at this time they do want freedom and I understand that.
However, as history shows us, an extended period of anarchy changes perspectives considerably.
My point is IF we are serious about regime change in Iran, whether from within or without, there has to be a strong and serious commitment to restoration of infrastructure and order via a newly trained Police force and new responsible and accountable Government structures, not simply overthrowing the mullahs and walking away.
We can't replicate the mistakes of Iraq where we did too little post the fall of the Ba'athists to create a peaceful society in the country.
I'm struggling to understand why the government has been so slow to defend British sovereign territory in Cyprus. The Greeks and French have every right to be upset.
There's a pattern with this government.
We're desperately rooting round in the cupboard to see if there's a working boat we can rustle up.
HMS Dragon isn't ready yet, and won't be until next weekend. Pathetic.
In the Falklands War we got a whole task force off in 72 hours.
I have the vision of the sailors turning up and a bloke with fag hanging out his mouth, big drag, well you see Barry can't come until next week to sort the toilets out and Trev is in Alicante on a golf trip so the painting isn't finished. I did my back out in 07, so I can't do it.....
Its something I really started to notice now in the UK compared to Asia. Asia, I consistently see when stuff breaks, its gets fixed ASAP. In China they fixed shit in my hotel within 2hrs, I saw an escalator break in Shangai at 7pm, I went into an art gallery, came out 2hrs later, a blokes had fixed it and where just tidying away their equipment.
Then I fly back to the UK, get in at 6am, multiple toilets broken....at an international airport. Given first flight in, those bogs had been broken from at least the previous day.
Trouble is, fixing stuff costs money. Fixing stuff quickly, rather than in three weeks' time when I can fit you in, costs more money.
And for a long time now, avoiding spending money has been the British way. How much that is owners wanting to extract every penny before the business collapses, how much it is customers having a preference for low-cost-but-shoddy, I don't know. Shame, because it's a problem that is biting the country increasingly painfully on the bum.
And you used to get Ron from maintenance to pop down with his toolkit to take a look and then he raided his cupboard of spares to get it fixed. Now you call the maintenance company, they put you in the queue, have a look, then order the part. It's probably more efficient in terms of maintenance costs, but often takes longer. And Ron probably had a way of doing a temporary fix that got it up and running if needed (partly due to things being more basic and easier to take apart - also likely bigger, costlier, uglier, less environmentally friendly in initial manufacturing footprint etc).
One of the problems with this kinda of setup is also there are now lots of people who can go well mate, not my job, I just raise the work order, you need to speak to x at y who deals with the work order if its been done wrong and then x says yeah I just process the work order but then it goes to z. Allows a lot of people to hide behind the job not being done right nor being checked that it has been done right.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
You might miss the Rule of Law though.
Law should always be pragmatic and flexible. That was always the English way, to have a flexible and amendable law, changeable by Parliament, not a hard and fast codified one.
The rigid dogmatic institutionalisation of "The Law" (TM) over and above flexibility and politics is a rather modern and not a positive invention.
Good news on that front - a little bird tells me the government is going to trial cyclists/horse riders being allowed to pass through red lights, as long as they give way to pedestrians (like a zebra crossing).
Exactly the kind of flexibility we need - red lights for pedal cycles was always a dreadful constriction on #freedom #magnacarta
Thought most cyclists already did that anyway...
I think that's the best argument for it. If you think cyclists are always going through red lights, the lack of fatalities as a result would suggest it's an unnecessary restriction.
I can't see how you could argue against 20mph limits (which do gave a significant impact on pedestrians) while opposing this.
I can say I cannot ever recall watching CH4 for anything
But if you and @Roger sing its praises then it must be of the left
Put it this way. It is no GBNews.
PB Tories would class it as left wing. I find it appropriately critical of Labour, Conservatives, Dem and GOP.
Their journalists and presenters are old school, probably left leaning but not unduly uncritical of Labour or Dem.
I find they report the news rather than opine like Mason and Kuennsberg tend to do.
It's a little left (in my view) but I always liked it as news for grown ups - people who had a basic understanding of the world and so didn't need to be spoonfed every detail, leaving more time for in depth reporting on the current situation.
It's a while since I watch it regularly though - it clashes with kids' bed and bath routine if watched live!
The other good thing about Channel 4 News is that they credit viewers with intelligence and attention span by featuring relatively long reports in depth on fewer subjects.
The old Newsnight was as good, but now it is just another bunch of talking heads in a studio.
Panorama is another victim of this. You can't explain a complicated investigation with comment from relevant people in 20 odd minutes, so they rarely do any. The odd exception, its all surface level crap.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
You might miss the Rule of Law though.
Law should always be pragmatic and flexible. That was always the English way, to have a flexible and amendable law, changeable by Parliament, not a hard and fast codified one.
The rigid dogmatic institutionalisation of "The Law" (TM) over and above flexibility and politics is a rather modern and not a positive invention.
Good news on that front - a little bird tells me the government is going to trial cyclists/horse riders being allowed to pass through red lights, as long as they give way to pedestrians (like a zebra crossing).
Exactly the kind of flexibility we need - red lights for pedal cycles was always a dreadful constriction on #freedom #magnacarta
That will be interesting if it appears. Those are now the rules ("Idaho" stop, where it started in 1982) in around 13-15 US States, when a STOP sign can be treated as a YIELD sign.
Does it apply to "Stop" signs - clearly less important than in the USA as we have so few of them?
I was looking at a cyclist illegally stopped by a cop in a Civil Liberties video the other day in a State with Idaho Stop in place.
One I'm picking up is some arguing that a wheelchair (the mobility aid that was impounded by the police for 3 weeks as they did not know what it was) with an attachment to make it an e-trike should be treated as a Mobility Scooter not a Pedelec. That's a small difference but will cause trouble on mobility tracks mixing with cycles.
I have also seen a submission demanding the same ADAS systems as passenger cars for clip-on wheelchair attachments. ADAS are Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems, which are the full "detect objects in front by radar and apply the brakes stuff. Power breaks on a bloody wheelchair?
I watched a couple of guys the other day putting up new signs for the station name a train station. They couldn't even be bothered to reach down and use a spirit level to mark / ensure the signs where straight. One bloke held the sign, the other whacked a couple of drill holes through into the wall. Stood back, wasn't straight, shrugged, and they moved on to the next one.
I watched a couple of guys the other day putting up new signs for the station name a train station. They couldn't even be bothered to reach down and use a spirit level to mark / ensure the signs where straight. One bloke held the sign, the other whacked a couple of drill holes through into the wall. Stood back, wasn't straight, shrugged, and they moved on to the next one.
Sounds a bit like a Benny Hill or Two Ronnies sketch.
I can say I cannot ever recall watching CH4 for anything
But if you and @Roger sing its praises then it must be of the left
Put it this way. It is no GBNews.
PB Tories would class it as left wing. I find it appropriately critical of Labour, Conservatives, Dem and GOP.
Their journalists and presenters are old school, probably left leaning but not unduly uncritical of Labour or Dem.
I find they report the news rather than opine like Mason and Kuennsberg tend to do.
It's a little left (in my view) but I always liked it as news for grown ups - people who had a basic understanding of the world and so didn't need to be spoonfed every detail, leaving more time for in depth reporting on the current situation.
It's a while since I watch it regularly though - it clashes with kids' bed and bath routine if watched live!
The other good thing about Channel 4 News is that they credit viewers with intelligence and attention span by featuring relatively long reports in depth on fewer subjects.
The old Newsnight was as good, but now it is just another bunch of talking heads in a studio.
Panorama is another victim of this. You can't explain a complicated investigation with comment from relevant people in 20 odd minutes, so they rarely do any. The odd exception, its all surface level crap.
When you watch old documentaries or current affairs programmes like Horizon, In Our Time etc it is impressive how they gave subjects and interviews time, compared to jump cut modern editing.
Indeed the original Thunderbirds is ponderously slow in comparison to modern programming.
The single biggest failures of Starmer/Reeves has been lack of vision and lack of comms. Literally anyone who is able to articulate what they actually want to achieve in politics and how to tackle some of the problems in our system would be better than the current lot.
I heard Starmer at PMQs and he is rubbish at speaking at the despatch box and answering the questions. Starmer shows no wit, no deftness, drones on, and his blaming the previous government is wearing very thin.
The thing is I can't honestly think of anyone else in the party who would be better than Starmer, his failings are on the politics side of things, there might be better speakers, who would drum up enthusiasm, but their instincts and abilities to govern may well be worse.
Maybe he should have a drink or two before appearing in public?
Starmer had what I think is a new tactic today. He hijacked one of Kemi's questions to make the government announcement on evacuations that would normally have been a separate statement.
6 0 starmer today
She didn't deserve 0
Worst Pmq performance I've ever seen.
Made
Truss Corbyn IDS
Look decent
A score draw then, after accounting for bias
Watch it and come back
I did watch it earlier, and to give Sir Keir his dues he came across better than usual at times.
Badenoch wasn’t that bad though, what I saw bears Nov resemblance to what you have written.
The speaker should force the PM to provide an answer to the LotO’s questions, it is ridiculous how they just ignore them
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
Yes, I know you won't but what you want or advocate (and what I want or advocate) is immaterial.
If you are in a Tehran suburb and you've survived the IGRC thus far, you have a job and can provide enough for your family, would that certainty not seem preferable to the disorder of anarchy with no job, no food, no security and no money where you can be attacked in the street or have your house broken into?
This is what sometimes happens when dictatorships fall - you don't get freedom and liberty on day one, what you get is anarchy and chaos, death and destruction. That isn't an argument FOR dictatorship, it's a recognition of what happens in some societies when the restraints of terror and fear are removed - scores are settled, the strong bully the weak, the frail and old suffer.
As we saw in Iraq, it can take a lot of time and death before order is restored, a new Police force trained, new institutions created and new laws passed.
No it would not be preferable.
People were on the street literally only a few weeks ago to say so.
Good luck to them! I stand with the people of Iran who want freedom, not the people of Iran who want order.
Yes and at this time they do want freedom and I understand that.
However, as history shows us, an extended period of anarchy changes perspectives considerably.
My point is IF we are serious about regime change in Iran, whether from within or without, there has to be a strong and serious commitment to restoration of infrastructure and order via a newly trained Police force and new responsible and accountable Government structures, not simply overthrowing the mullahs and walking away.
We can't replicate the mistakes of Iraq where we did too little post the fall of the Ba'athists to create a peaceful society in the country.
We stayed in Iraq a long time to rebuilt it.
What happens next should be more on the Iranians than us, it is frankly hubristic to suggest we should write their future.
I desire no more and no less than the Mullahs gone and them empowered to determine what happens next.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Stability is stagnation, it is not a good thing, especially when the stability is a dictatorship.
Instability enables progress.
Chaos over order? Well, it's a view and certainly valid to argue chaos means change of whatever nature.
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
You might miss the Rule of Law though.
Law should always be pragmatic and flexible. That was always the English way, to have a flexible and amendable law, changeable by Parliament, not a hard and fast codified one.
The rigid dogmatic institutionalisation of "The Law" (TM) over and above flexibility and politics is a rather modern and not a positive invention.
Good news on that front - a little bird tells me the government is going to trial cyclists/horse riders being allowed to pass through red lights, as long as they give way to pedestrians (like a zebra crossing).
I can say I cannot ever recall watching CH4 for anything
But if you and @Roger sing its praises then it must be of the left
Put it this way. It is no GBNews.
PB Tories would class it as left wing. I find it appropriately critical of Labour, Conservatives, Dem and GOP.
Their journalists and presenters are old school, probably left leaning but not unduly uncritical of Labour or Dem.
I find they report the news rather than opine like Mason and Kuennsberg tend to do.
It's a little left (in my view) but I always liked it as news for grown ups - people who had a basic understanding of the world and so didn't need to be spoonfed every detail, leaving more time for in depth reporting on the current situation.
It's a while since I watch it regularly though - it clashes with kids' bed and bath routine if watched live!
The other good thing about Channel 4 News is that they credit viewers with intelligence and attention span by featuring relatively long reports in depth on fewer subjects.
The old Newsnight was as good, but now it is just another bunch of talking heads in a studio.
Panorama is another victim of this. You can't explain a complicated investigation with comment from relevant people in 20 odd minutes, so they rarely do any. The odd exception, its all surface level crap.
When you watch old documentaries or current affairs programmes like Horizon, In Our Time etc it is impressive how they gave subjects and interviews time, compared to jump cut modern editing.
Indeed the original Thunderbirds is ponderously slow in comparison to modern programming.
This has been a huge issue in.Anglio-American broadcasting since the mid '90s. I watched the decline happen when I was working in the sector, and to a certain extent we adopted the pace of 1980's America.
I watched a couple of guys the other day putting up new signs for the station name a train station. They couldn't even be bothered to reach down and use a spirit level to mark / ensure the signs where straight. One bloke held the sign, the other whacked a couple of drill holes through into the wall. Stood back, wasn't straight, shrugged, and they moved on to the next one.
BIcester to Bletchley service... must... have... Bicester to Bletchley service...
I can say I cannot ever recall watching CH4 for anything
But if you and @Roger sing its praises then it must be of the left
Put it this way. It is no GBNews.
PB Tories would class it as left wing. I find it appropriately critical of Labour, Conservatives, Dem and GOP.
Their journalists and presenters are old school, probably left leaning but not unduly uncritical of Labour or Dem.
I find they report the news rather than opine like Mason and Kuennsberg tend to do.
It's a little left (in my view) but I always liked it as news for grown ups - people who had a basic understanding of the world and so didn't need to be spoonfed every detail, leaving more time for in depth reporting on the current situation.
It's a while since I watch it regularly though - it clashes with kids' bed and bath routine if watched live!
The other good thing about Channel 4 News is that they credit viewers with intelligence and attention span by featuring relatively long reports in depth on fewer subjects.
The old Newsnight was as good, but now it is just another bunch of talking heads in a studio.
Panorama is another victim of this. You can't explain a complicated investigation with comment from relevant people in 20 odd minutes, so they rarely do any. The odd exception, its all surface level crap.
When you watch old documentaries or current affairs programmes like Horizon, In Our Time etc it is impressive how they gave subjects and interviews time, compared to jump cut modern editing.
Indeed the original Thunderbirds is ponderously slow in comparison to modern programming.
Now you might say well people today eye roll, no attention span. But the likes of Vertasium on Youtube have shown 50+ minute videos about really quite niche science and maths subjects draws huge audiences. 11m people watched a 30 minute video about Markov Chains and 16m about the Path of Least Action.
Comments
Trump or Netanyahu?
Putin has issued a decree setting the size of his army, including civilian personnel, at nearly two and a half million people, of whom one and a half million are military personnel.
In the Falklands War we got a whole task force off in 72 hours.
@atrupar
·
24m
Karoline Leavitt says American boots on the ground in Iran are "on the table"
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2029268688877064634
In recent years though we have seen successful bombing of Serbia, a successful bombing and invasion of Iraq, the successful bombing and overthrow of Gaddaffi.
All of those led to the liberation of people from their oppressors.
Seize Tehran and end this regime once and for all.
Trump can get bounced by either of them into action.
Summarising the Israeli government's position, Citrinowicz said: "If we can have a coup, great. If we can have people on the streets, great. If we can have a civil war, great. Israel couldn't care less about the future ... [or] the stability of Iran."
Instability enables progress.
I do agree we need some honesty on the whole issue and that's been lacking from all parties. There's a political truism being honest gets you nowhere and telling people what they don't want to hear even less.
The prevailing sentiment will be "as long as I don't have to pay or suffer any loss to services, I'll support it" while those set to lose out will shout long and loud.
I do however get the feeling that people like Starmer and Reeves (and a lot of politicians of all stripes) are totally disconnected from the value of Defence. To them it’s a bit of a nebulous concept, they know we have soldiers and planes and boats but truly cannot see past that and that it’s the first priority of a govt. Hard to dish out benefits if you are being attacked etc.
We’ve had many years of “peace” where our military have been fighting quasi wars in Northern Ireland and wars in far away countries and they have lost all real fear and so don’t prioritise defence as they should.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/04/britain-not-ruling-out-future-strikes-iran-missile-sites
I really can't see anything good about the Serbian example, Iraq just helped reduce army casualties, and Libya is a complete dogs dinner to this day.
So, (admittedly with the constraint, and hats off for happily debating along those lines) it seems a fairly weak case.
(Japan and Germany - happy to engage, but perhaps not the forum)
They’re stuck with bases which end up targets anytime GB is involved in ME action . This screws their tourism industry and puts the local population at risk . Starmer took too long to clarify that the US wouldn’t be using the bases there and the UK should have had its assets there already .
Thank heavens the Greeks and French have come to help .
As for Libya, so what if its a dogs dinner? Gaddafi is gone. That is great.
Forced choice between having the Iranian Regime survive or a dogs dinner, I would choose a dogs dinner every time. That would be a huge improvement.
Obviously a free and civilised democratic nation would be preferable, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of improvements.
But it's the Greeks who have defended the island today, and Erdoğan certainly wouldn't be interested in defending from Hezbollah drones aimed at Akrotiri.
We’ve now a PM who has stopped that.
Thank you Sir Keir.
Its something I really started to notice now in the UK compared to Asia. Asia, I consistently see when stuff breaks, its gets fixed ASAP. In China they fixed shit in my hotel within 2hrs, I saw an escalator break in Shangai at 7pm, I went into an art gallery, came out 2hrs later, a blokes had fixed it and where just tidying away their equipment.
Then I fly back to the UK, get in at 6am, multiple toilets broken....at an international airport. Given first flight in, those bogs had been broken from at least the previous day.
We accomplished regime change in Iraq, you should never forget that. 👍
Let's turn the discussion on its tail though. What merits do you see from bombing Iran?
Two World Wars last century and millions dead certainly piled on the change but people tire of unending chaos and want order of whatever form.
How often do we see revolutions which topple autarchies or dictatorships themselves lead to dictatorship and repression in the name of ending chaos and restoring order?
It may be simple for you but for many people the certainty of order (with all the restrictions) seems more attractive than the uncertainty of anarchy (what price "freedom" if there is no work, no money, no food and no law?).
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6jEs-QezInA
Two minutes of Tony Benn speaking in the Commons before the Iraq war.
PB Tories would class it as left wing. I find it appropriately critical of Labour, Conservatives, Dem and GOP.
Their journalists and presenters are old school, probably left leaning but not unduly uncritical of Labour or Dem.
I find they report the news rather than opine like Mason and Kuennsberg tend to do.
1: Iran is the source of much evil around the world, including being the money and arms behind Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has funded them to the tune of billions. If Iran is too busy defending itself it can not be supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. See the recent announcement by Lebanon that they are going to disarm and remove Hezbollah, good luck to them with that if they can do that it would be huge.
2: Iran was currently supplying vast forces of Shahed weaponry to Russia to kill Ukranians. If Iran is struggling to defend itself it can no longer assist Russia, which helps Ukraine.
3: The regime was already pretty broke and struggling. Every bit the weaponry is degraded makes it less of a threat and will make rebuilding by them even harder.
4: The regime was already extremely unpopular on the streets, but has the guns and is willing to slaughter tens of thousands of their own people in cold blood. Destroy their guns and the people have more of a fighting chance to free themselves.
Lots of potential upsides from fighting the Mullahs. Rather take the fight to them, than let them direct where the fighting should occur.
Yes some may choose to turn to authoritarians to prefer order over instability. I never have and never will.
People have got so used to domestic peace and order that they no longer even notice that they rely on it.
Some friends of mine have known real disorder (the collapse of the Soviet Union, Amin then Obote in Uganda, the aftermath of the first Gulf War in Iraq, the long Civil War in Sudan, etc). None of them want to see that sort of chaos for anyone.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was fantastic. It enabled Eastern Europe to be free and rid of their Soviet oppressors.
Yes instability has costs, but those costs are worth paying.
I am curious what percentage of Eastern Europe now regrets the collapse of the Soviet Union and would gladly hand back their liberty to be under the yoke of the Soviets?
It was completely illegible but I remember he used red ink.
They were interviewing a few Iranians on the Beeb the other day who all made the point that whilst they didn’t like the oppression they could grind out a way to live and be relatively happy and safe, in chaos they have no safety, security or stability.
Until you have to make that decision then I find it bizarre that you post with such absolute conviction on that choice.
The rigid dogmatic institutionalisation of "The Law" (TM) over and above flexibility and politics is a rather modern and not a positive invention.
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Edit. Although I do wish Barty would tone down the Grim Reaper narrative.
If you are in a Tehran suburb and you've survived the IGRC thus far, you have a job and can provide enough for your family, would that certainty not seem preferable to the disorder of anarchy with no job, no food, no security and no money where you can be attacked in the street or have your house broken into?
This is what sometimes happens when dictatorships fall - you don't get freedom and liberty on day one, what you get is anarchy and chaos, death and destruction. That isn't an argument FOR dictatorship, it's a recognition of what happens in some societies when the restraints of terror and fear are removed - scores are settled, the strong bully the weak, the frail and old suffer.
As we saw in Iraq, it can take a lot of time and death before order is restored, a new Police force trained, new institutions created and new laws passed.
My principles have always consistently involved respecting freedom and liberty and opposing authoritarianism.
Some may gladly yield to the yoke of the oppressor for an easier life. Many do not. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians, if not millions, braved the streets recently to show they want liberty despite knowing what the regime would do to them. Tens of thousands lost their lives in a brutal onslaught by their dictators.
For you to imply that only kowtowing to dictators is the acceptable choice is not appropriate.
Top bloke.
People were on the street literally only a few weeks ago to say so.
Good luck to them! I stand with the people of Iran who want freedom, not the people of Iran who want order.
1&2 - I agree. Should there be a switch available that says 'Ayatollahs Off' then I'd switch it to off.
4 - The regime is both popular and unpopular - impossible to discern the degree.
It's all quite tricky.
In practise this means engineers are expected to be available 24/7. If a machine at the FAB goes wrong at 4am the relevant staff are called at home and they have to be there within 30 minutes and get it fixed immediately
TSMC have complained that they find it very hard to duplicate this work ethic elsewhere, eg the new FABs in Arizona
And for a long time now, avoiding spending money has been the British way. How much that is owners wanting to extract every penny before the business collapses, how much it is customers having a preference for low-cost-but-shoddy, I don't know. Shame, because it's a problem that is biting the country increasingly painfully on the bum.
Exactly the kind of flexibility we need - red lights for pedal cycles was always a dreadful constriction on #freedom #magna
cartaYou don’t have to wake up in post war Iraq where your business is gone, you have trouble getting regular food and don’t know if your children are going to get caught up in an IED explosion on the way to school because the country has broken down into chaos and areas are ruled by militias with various political and sectarian beefs that might not favour you.
So to be so absolutely certain that this is the right thing to do, to remove a functioning p, if evil and repressive government, is strange and would probably benefit from a little nuance. Whilst a lot of Iraqis now have the same or better life, hundreds of thousands died before that was possible.
So long as its clear that whoever has a green light has right of way and if a Darwin Award winner who can't even be bothered to strap on a helmet goes through a red light and gets taken out of the gene pool by a vehicle which crossed a green light, then it should be categorically the Darwin Award winners fault that they are no longer breathing.
It's a while since I watch it regularly though - it clashes with kids' bed and bath routine if watched live!
Far many more people are posting with certainty against the conflict than I am posting in favour of it.
Despite the Iranian public having braved the Mullahs while unarmed, many here do not wish to engage them.
I do not deny there is a cost to conflict. I simply accept that. Most things that are worth doing in this life have a cost attached.
Let me give a little more detail. For a number of weeks now, we have been pre-deploying our capabilities to the region. In doing so, we have been liaising very closely with the United States, as the House would have expected. Therefore, radar systems were pre-deployed, ground-based air defence was pre-deployed, counter-drone systems were pre-deployed, and F-35 jets were pre-deployed. That is why since Saturday morning, multiple F-35s and Typhoons have been in operation, not just in the middle east but across Cyprus.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-04/debates/13322AC4-D224-4407-B737-2FEB75AD5866/Engagements
I noted a RAF anti-drone unit being there a couple of weeks ago on PB.
The "look look he did not send a ship" is more characteristic of the latest episode of groping around for stuff to throw at Mr Starmer.
What more concerns me here is the utter lack of quality in any of our opposition party leaders on the Right. Kemi today was a dead parrot reading out flash cards, and Farage is .... Farage.
https://x.com/MarkKleinmanSky/status/2029230884482699708
https://news.sky.com/story/can-mahmoods-radical-immigration-changes-save-labour-sky-news-interviews-the-home-secretary-13514981
The old Newsnight was as good, but now it is just another bunch of talking heads in a studio.
However, as history shows us, an extended period of anarchy changes perspectives considerably.
My point is IF we are serious about regime change in Iran, whether from within or without, there has to be a strong and serious commitment to restoration of infrastructure and order via a newly trained Police force and new responsible and accountable Government structures, not simply overthrowing the mullahs and walking away.
We can't replicate the mistakes of Iraq where we did too little post the fall of the Ba'athists to create a peaceful society in the country.
I can't see how you could argue against 20mph limits (which do gave a significant impact on pedestrians) while opposing this.
Does it apply to "Stop" signs - clearly less important than in the USA as we have so few of them?
I was looking at a cyclist illegally stopped by a cop in a Civil Liberties video the other day in a State with Idaho Stop in place.
One I'm picking up is some arguing that a wheelchair (the mobility aid that was impounded by the police for 3 weeks as they did not know what it was) with an attachment to make it an e-trike should be treated as a Mobility Scooter not a Pedelec. That's a small difference but will cause trouble on mobility tracks mixing with cycles.
I have also seen a submission demanding the same ADAS systems as passenger cars for clip-on wheelchair attachments. ADAS are Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems, which are the full "detect objects in front by radar and apply the brakes stuff. Power breaks on a bloody wheelchair?
Indeed the original Thunderbirds is ponderously slow in comparison to modern programming.
Badenoch wasn’t that bad though, what I saw bears Nov resemblance to what you have written.
The speaker should force the PM to provide an answer to the LotO’s questions, it is ridiculous how they just ignore them
What happens next should be more on the Iranians than us, it is frankly hubristic to suggest we should write their future.
I desire no more and no less than the Mullahs gone and them empowered to determine what happens next.