U.S. will insure losses up to $40 billion for tankers brave enough to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Berkshire Hathaway and Liberty Mutual are among six new insurers with which the federal government is partnering to provide maritime reinsurance to ships traveling through the Persian Gulf.
U.S. will insure losses up to $40 billion for tankers brave enough to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Berkshire Hathaway and Liberty Mutual are among six new insurers with which the federal government is partnering to provide maritime reinsurance to ships traveling through the Persian Gulf.
I think it’s time PB invests in MV PoliticalBetting and falsifies cargo manifests and starts cashing in. Make it look like a US navy ship.
U.S. will insure losses up to $40 billion for tankers brave enough to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Berkshire Hathaway and Liberty Mutual are among six new insurers with which the federal government is partnering to provide maritime reinsurance to ships traveling through the Persian Gulf.
So President Trump is seeking to divert $1 trillion from housing and education for Americans into bombs and missiles for foreign wars (but not to fight or deter any of the big boys). We need somebody like Niall Ferguson to explain this doctrine in a Times column. It would be premature to comment until we've had the benefit of that.
It is definitely what the good old boys down in the bar in some holler in Kentucky who love MAGA voted for. No doubt.
A big problem for France in the short term. A much bigger problem for US arms exporters, longer term.
I still laugh at how films for decades had the US military Industrial complex assassinating people to protect their interests with highly skilled assassins or snipers. Is Hollywood going to become reality when they start to look at the loss of business?
BREAKING: A second Air Force combat plane, a A-10 Warthog, crashed in the Persian Gulf region on Friday, and the lone pilot was safely rescued. This happened around the same time a F-15E was shot down over Iran.
The A-10s are old planes, those left flying are pretty much reprieved from the boneyards. Not too surprising if one has mechanical issues.
But equally not too surprising if it has been brought down. It is from a different era of surface to air weaponry.
Ah, A-10 Tank-killer, one of the first Windows PC games I played.
It entered service in 1976! While military technology advances rapidly, it's amazing how long airframes remain in service.
The B-52 entered service in 1955. It will still be flying in twenty years time.
The A-10 will be scrapped pretty soon.
None of the airframes are original; they've all undergone extensive upgrades and (eg) wing replacement.
I don't think there is an original rivet in the B-52.
There is a lot of original material left in the B-52Gs. They were designed in the 40s before any computational analysis and design optimisation was possible. As a result they were massively over-designed, inadvertently giving them a very long service life. The flexible wing (the tip can deflect 10m in normal flight regimes) helps too.
So their longevity isn't because loads of structural components have been replaced, it's because the original bits were many times stronger than they needed to be for the aircraft's intended lifespan. See also RC/KC-135. This made it economically viable to do systems and propulsion upgrade to keep the platform relevant.
Can't that go horribly wrong though? Thinking of Nimrod, where the upgrades didn't work.
Of course, things go horribly wrong in military aviation all the time. The continued existence of the B-52, which will see off three of its supposed successors in the B-58, B-1B and B-2, is judged to be worth the effort and expense of managing those risks. Mainly because its very flexible and can fulfil a lot of missions without tanker support.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Do they not realise that their actions are likely counterproductive and will spur a backlash (a la Trump) that will make global warming worse?
It's a hell of a lot more productive to live in the land of the possible and thing, what can I do today that won't negatively impact living standards, and will make a difference to emissions. And then tomorrow, we can have the same discussion. And the day after. Incrementalism is more likely to be successful than revolution.
I kinda agree with you, but then slow incrementalism and lip service to global warming has led to where we are now. A much hotter planet and vast amounts of CO2 still going into the atmosphere. I was on a training course recently with someone who studies glaciers. He was saying they discourage young researchers from coming into the field as it’s just too depressing to see these dramatic effects on our climate and not enough being done.
Where were are now is in a really great place.
Yes, yes, I know it doesn't feel like it. But it only doesn't feel like it because people aren't very good at recognizing the impact of small percentage changes over long periods of time.
In 2025, 86% of all new electricity generating capacity was renewables. Solar is going to pass both nuclear and wind this year in terms of production of kilowatts. Coal has all but disappeared in many markets (or at least it had until the recent blocking of the Straits of Hormuz). China's carbon emissions are now falling, and they are building a quite insane amount of solar right now, which is displacing... yes... mostly coal. China roads are full of electric vehicles. Falling battery prices make intermittant power sources that much more usable.
Global CO2 emissions will soon start to fall, and so long as solar and battery prices keep falling (which they will), they are going to keep falling.
We don't *need* governments to do anything anymore. The market is going to replace first coal, then petrol and eventually (albeit probably on a pretty long time horizon) natural gas. Now, can the government help this along? Sure they can: and best of all, doing that makes us more resilient to supply disruptions. But the idea we're in a terrible place is absurd. Literally no one forecast that Chinese CO2 emissions would fall, and that coal would start to get pushed out that market by solar. That's how quickly things are changing, and they're mostly changing for the better.
Indeed and well said
I was struck, on my recent visit to Shanghai, by the silence of the streets. By that I mean, the total absence of infernal combustion engines. Basically everything is electric (including mopeds and motorbikes, so there are no wankers like @Dura_Ace trying to wreck your sleep with souped up "cans")
So all you can hear is... humans. Human laughter and chatter, humans selling and buying, humans having fun and living life. Not disgusting engines churning out smoke
Life does get better
Indeed. I was last in China in late 2019 or very early 2020 (just before Covid). And at that time the roads and the pollution were hideous.
Now... not so much.
It's a whole new world.
It really is. Well done China
We desperately need India to follow suit. Last time I was in New Delhi - about 2018 - the pollution was literally the worst I have ever encountered, anywhere, and I travelled a fair bit around the old communist bloc, and I know Cairo and Mexico City very well
AIUI India is not much improved. Ugh
According to Google India has 60-80 of the world's 100 most polluted cities. It is grim
So, what we've learned here kids is that the market is the answer.
Worth remembering that.
Is it the market? Surely China is an example of STATE-directed capitalism. Not pure market forces
The CCP decided that China must clean up its act, and that they have done, and it is deeply impressive
I suspect it's more that the Chinese realised the future is electric, intervened in the market in quite a brutal way (but then let firms get on with it), and have probably jumped 20-30 years ahead of where they would be as a result.
We thought ICEs were going to kill the planet, but cowered in the face of legacy car manufacturers, dithered, sent all sorts of mixed signals, and continue to dither. As a result we've killed off European car manufacturing, not switched to EVs, and are probably a decade behind where we should be.
The lesson is to only make these kinds of intervetions with conviction. Not sure that's really possible in a democracy because you'll always have worriers who vote and vested interests more powerful than the state.
One of the lessons is that existing companies will distort markets to protect themselves from competition..
That's been a truism ever since Adam Smith came up with the idea of the invisible hand - and he was quite explicit about it in his exposition of the market.
It's post my lifetime and above my paygrade but I have the strongest feeling that humankind will need to evolve beyond capitalism if it is to have a long-term sustainable future.
“A knight of the seven kingdoms” is seriously and surprisingly good. If you like Game of Thrones spin offs. Which I do
It is very good. It’s almost unlike GOT as it’s really a “buddy movie”. The combination of the decent but slightly dim adult and the wise and clever child is brilliant. The violence is needed in the parts it exists and there are no dragons and not a lot of tits. Was a very good series.
It’s actually much better than Game of Thrones itself because the story is simple. I really enjoyed GoT but half the time I didn’t know who was doing what to whom and why. House Kinabalu is allied with er House Horse Battery but wait why are they helping House SMITHSON junior, etc etc
The best stories are simple. Boy meets loses and wins girl. Son of god is amazing is killed and rises again. Hobbits are good and must prevail
And so on and so forth
Keep it simple
It works nicely as a palate cleanser - I thought house of the dragon was a bit meh and hoping it takes off in next series but KOT7K was more like a historical fiction in a very human way. It could have been a knight and squire story in the 100 years war or war of the roses so it was slightly outside the GoT lore and better for it, the families you know from GoT could just be simalcrums of families from English medieval history and it wouldn’t matter. It was a happy, even with the dark side, journey.
Just realised it is “Paper Moon” by Peter Bogdanovich, right down to the various shared eating scenes etc, which prove their humanity and frailty. But adapted to the GoT multiverse
U.S. will insure losses up to $40 billion for tankers brave enough to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Berkshire Hathaway and Liberty Mutual are among six new insurers with which the federal government is partnering to provide maritime reinsurance to ships traveling through the Persian Gulf.
I think it’s time PB invests in MV PoliticalBetting and falsifies cargo manifests and starts cashing in. Make it look like a US navy ship.
U.S. will insure losses up to $40 billion for tankers brave enough to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Berkshire Hathaway and Liberty Mutual are among six new insurers with which the federal government is partnering to provide maritime reinsurance to ships traveling through the Persian Gulf.
I think it’s time PB invests in MV PoliticalBetting and falsifies cargo manifests and starts cashing in. Make it look like a US navy ship.
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
I don't think it's a shame, or particularly significant. It was a photo op, and she made the most of it.
BREAKING: A second Air Force combat plane, a A-10 Warthog, crashed in the Persian Gulf region on Friday, and the lone pilot was safely rescued. This happened around the same time a F-15E was shot down over Iran.
The A-10s are old planes, those left flying are pretty much reprieved from the boneyards. Not too surprising if one has mechanical issues.
But equally not too surprising if it has been brought down. It is from a different era of surface to air weaponry.
Ah, A-10 Tank-killer, one of the first Windows PC games I played.
It entered service in 1976! While military technology advances rapidly, it's amazing how long airframes remain in service.
The B-52 entered service in 1955. It will still be flying in twenty years time.
The A-10 will be scrapped pretty soon.
None of the airframes are original; they've all undergone extensive upgrades and (eg) wing replacement.
I don't think there is an original rivet in the B-52.
There is a lot of original material left in the B-52Gs. They were designed in the 40s before any computational analysis and design optimisation was possible. As a result they were massively over-designed, inadvertently giving them a very long service life. The flexible wing (the tip can deflect 10m in normal flight regimes) helps too.
So their longevity isn't because loads of structural components have been replaced, it's because the original bits were many times stronger than they needed to be for the aircraft's intended lifespan. See also RC/KC-135. This made it economically viable to do systems and propulsion upgrade to keep the platform relevant.
Can't that go horribly wrong though? Thinking of Nimrod, where the upgrades didn't work.
They had a near fail with a plan to upgrade the B-52 to 4 modern engines. Which was caught in time and binned - the control dynamics would have been a disaster.
Now, many years later, they are looking at it - this time with 8 engines.
The problem with Nimrod was interesting. The oft told story was that Nimrod was a Comet, converted. That isn't true. Nimrods were originally a purpose built *variant*. And the quality conceal in the British industry of the 1960s was shocking.
At the end of WWI, building planes on jigs was standard. A bunch of enthusiastic apprentices at Sopwith installed the wrong wings on some planes - because they were made to fit the same mounting structure. that was *1918*
In WWII, mechanics at squadrons would piece together hybrids - Crossland, in his autobiography talks about an early mark Spitfire which they bolted on a late model Merlin, the wrong wings etc - to create an insanely fast squadron hack that was used for training.
Nimrods were built with astounding carelessness. Some bits were *inches* out. So after the Haddon-Cave report on (ironically) the Nimrod crash in Afghanistan, air safety caught up with them. Each Nimrod was structurally different. Rebuilding them as planned would mean not type certification (or grandfathering it) but individually assessing their air worthiness. They didn't match the original design.
Even more fun was how the conversion was bodged.
So you ended up with planes that no-one would sign off as safe to fly.
U.S. will insure losses up to $40 billion for tankers brave enough to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Berkshire Hathaway and Liberty Mutual are among six new insurers with which the federal government is partnering to provide maritime reinsurance to ships traveling through the Persian Gulf.
I think it’s time PB invests in MV PoliticalBetting and falsifies cargo manifests and starts cashing in. Make it look like a US navy ship.
I can ask some old friends and find a disposable crew.
Do we want a rust bucket or something that is actually worth what it will be insured for?
What is the alternative to natural gas in the bulk production of fertiliser which is keeping a third of humanity alive ?
The conflict around the Strait of Hormuz is not a temporary shock. It is the beginning of a fundamental shift in how energy flows around the world, and Europe is not positioned for it.
This is the Fourth Systemic Risk-driven global crisis (after GFC, Covid and Russia‘s war on Ukraine) and it will hit global economy like a tsunami due to physical scarcity and supply-shock induced multiplicative cascading effects.
This is not just about higher gas bills. It is about whether European farms can grow food next year. Whether European factories and industries can keep running. Whether European governments can hold together when people cannot heat their homes or afford bread. Here is what must be done immediately:
1. Protect fertilizer production before the upcoming planting season Natural gas is the raw material for fertilizers. No gas → no fertilizers → harvests collapse within two seasons. Europe came dangerously close to this in 2022. There is still no law preventing it from happening again. Governments must guarantee that fertilizer plants get gas first before any other industrial use. This is the fastest path from an energy crisis to a food crisis, and it is entirely preventable.
2. Turn political promises into real contracts Europe has signed countless “energy partnership” declarations with like-minded countries the US, Canada, and Australia. Declarations do not keep the lights on. Binding, long-term supply agreements (real commercial contracts) need to be finalised within the year. Canada must get its act together and boost production ad hoc. Asian buyers are already moving faster.
BREAKING: A second Air Force combat plane, a A-10 Warthog, crashed in the Persian Gulf region on Friday, and the lone pilot was safely rescued. This happened around the same time a F-15E was shot down over Iran.
The A-10s are old planes, those left flying are pretty much reprieved from the boneyards. Not too surprising if one has mechanical issues.
But equally not too surprising if it has been brought down. It is from a different era of surface to air weaponry.
Ah, A-10 Tank-killer, one of the first Windows PC games I played.
It entered service in 1976! While military technology advances rapidly, it's amazing how long airframes remain in service.
The B-52 entered service in 1955. It will still be flying in twenty years time.
The A-10 will be scrapped pretty soon.
None of the airframes are original; they've all undergone extensive upgrades and (eg) wing replacement.
I don't think there is an original rivet in the B-52.
There is a lot of original material left in the B-52Gs. They were designed in the 40s before any computational analysis and design optimisation was possible. As a result they were massively over-designed, inadvertently giving them a very long service life. The flexible wing (the tip can deflect 10m in normal flight regimes) helps too.
So their longevity isn't because loads of structural components have been replaced, it's because the original bits were many times stronger than they needed to be for the aircraft's intended lifespan. See also RC/KC-135. This made it economically viable to do systems and propulsion upgrade to keep the platform relevant.
Can't that go horribly wrong though? Thinking of Nimrod, where the upgrades didn't work.
They had a near fail with a plan to upgrade the B-52 to 4 modern engines. Which was caught in time and binned - the control dynamics would have been a disaster.
Now, many years later, they are looking at it - this time with 8 engines.
The problem with Nimrod was interesting. The oft told story was that Nimrod was a Comet, converted. That isn't true. Nimrods were originally a purpose built *variant*.
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
I don't think it's a shame, or particularly significant. It was a photo op, and she made the most of it.
She is there to promote opening up the North Sea and to do so she uses a rig whose purpose is to help shut it down. Hardly the best photo op.
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
I don't think it's a shame, or particularly significant. It was a photo op, and she made the most of it.
She is there to promote opening up the North Sea and to do so she uses a rig whose purpose is to help shut it down. Hardly the best photo op.
The sensible rebuttal to your perfect criticism is that she had to do it on a rig that was there for decommissioning (I think that was your criticism) is that it’s a sad day where she had to go to such a rig .
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
I don't think it's a shame, or particularly significant. It was a photo op, and she made the most of it.
She is there to promote opening up the North Sea and to do so she uses a rig whose purpose is to help shut it down. Hardly the best photo op.
The sensible rebuttal to your perfect criticism is that she had to do it on a rig that was there for decommissioning (I think that was your criticism) is that it’s a sad day where she had to go to such a rig .
This is closer to the truth than you know. I had coffee on Wednesday with an old friend of mine - a drilling superintendent who works up the hill from me at Kingswells. He has just taken over control of a semi-sub (designed for medium to deep water operations) which will be doing abandonments for the next few years. We were trying to work out if there are any other semis still drilling in the UKCS and we were shocked to realise we couldn't think of any. My last two rigs which I was on a couple of years ago - the Ocean Great White and the COSL Innovator - have both moved to long term contracts in Norway. I don't actually think there is a single other rig available in the UKCS with the exception of the 3 Well-Safe decommissioning rigs. And world wide there is a shortage of rigs.
The rest of the world is in the middle of a very long oil boom and we have shut up shop.
BREAKING: A second Air Force combat plane, a A-10 Warthog, crashed in the Persian Gulf region on Friday, and the lone pilot was safely rescued. This happened around the same time a F-15E was shot down over Iran.
The A-10s are old planes, those left flying are pretty much reprieved from the boneyards. Not too surprising if one has mechanical issues.
But equally not too surprising if it has been brought down. It is from a different era of surface to air weaponry.
Ah, A-10 Tank-killer, one of the first Windows PC games I played.
It entered service in 1976! While military technology advances rapidly, it's amazing how long airframes remain in service.
The B-52 entered service in 1955. It will still be flying in twenty years time.
The A-10 will be scrapped pretty soon.
None of the airframes are original; they've all undergone extensive upgrades and (eg) wing replacement.
I don't think there is an original rivet in the B-52.
There is a lot of original material left in the B-52Gs. They were designed in the 40s before any computational analysis and design optimisation was possible. As a result they were massively over-designed, inadvertently giving them a very long service life. The flexible wing (the tip can deflect 10m in normal flight regimes) helps too.
So their longevity isn't because loads of structural components have been replaced, it's because the original bits were many times stronger than they needed to be for the aircraft's intended lifespan. See also RC/KC-135. This made it economically viable to do systems and propulsion upgrade to keep the platform relevant.
Can't that go horribly wrong though? Thinking of Nimrod, where the upgrades didn't work.
They had a near fail with a plan to upgrade the B-52 to 4 modern engines. Which was caught in time and binned - the control dynamics would have been a disaster.
Now, many years later, they are looking at it - this time with 8 engines.
The problem with Nimrod was interesting. The oft told story was that Nimrod was a Comet, converted. That isn't true. Nimrods were originally a purpose built *variant*.
XV230 and XV231 were converted from Comet 4s.
Neither were being converted - XV231 was in the junk pile and XV230 was... well.
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
I don't think it's a shame, or particularly significant. It was a photo op, and she made the most of it.
She is there to promote opening up the North Sea and to do so she uses a rig whose purpose is to help shut it down. Hardly the best photo op.
The sensible rebuttal to your perfect criticism is that she had to do it on a rig that was there for decommissioning (I think that was your criticism) is that it’s a sad day where she had to go to such a rig .
This is closer to the truth than you know. I had coffee on Wednesday with an old friend of mine - a drilling superintendent who works up the hill from me at Kingswells. He has just taken over control of a semi-sub (designed for medium to deep water operations) which will be doing abandonments for the next few years. We were trying to work out if there are any other semis still drilling in the UKCS and we were shocked to realise we couldn't think of any. My last two rigs which I was on a couple of years ago - the Ocean Great White and the COSL Innovator - have both moved to long term contracts in Norway. I don't actually think there is a single other rig available in the UKCS with the exception of the 3 Well-Safe decommissioning rigs. And world wide there is a shortage of rigs.
The rest of the world is in the middle of a very long oil boom and we have shut up shop.
When you combine the shortage of rigs with the current UK tax treatment for exploration, it's no great surprise that there's nothing going on then. It's heads you lose, tails the government wins. And boy does it cost you a lot to spin that coin.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
I can't help but wonder if the inexorable rise in nicking from shops has something to do with the inexorable rise in self-service checkouts and the concomitant decrease in shop workers who, without doing anything special, may have acted as a bit of a deterrent.
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
I don't think it's a shame, or particularly significant. It was a photo op, and she made the most of it.
She is there to promote opening up the North Sea and to do so she uses a rig whose purpose is to help shut it down. Hardly the best photo op.
The sensible rebuttal to your perfect criticism is that she had to do it on a rig that was there for decommissioning (I think that was your criticism) is that it’s a sad day where she had to go to such a rig .
This is closer to the truth than you know. I had coffee on Wednesday with an old friend of mine - a drilling superintendent who works up the hill from me at Kingswells. He has just taken over control of a semi-sub (designed for medium to deep water operations) which will be doing abandonments for the next few years. We were trying to work out if there are any other semis still drilling in the UKCS and we were shocked to realise we couldn't think of any. My last two rigs which I was on a couple of years ago - the Ocean Great White and the COSL Innovator - have both moved to long term contracts in Norway. I don't actually think there is a single other rig available in the UKCS with the exception of the 3 Well-Safe decommissioning rigs. And world wide there is a shortage of rigs.
The rest of the world is in the middle of a very long oil boom and we have shut up shop.
When you combine the shortage of rigs with the current UK tax treatment for exploration, it's no great surprise that there's nothing going on then. It's heads you lose, tails the government wins. And boy does it cost you a lot to spin that coin.
That's right, but it can be generalised to the rest of the economy.
Why try and achieve anything when you know the government's going to steal much of what you make?
The North Sea is perhaps a polar example, but it just shows that, since the panedmic, and especially since the last election, the government has gone from milking the cow to slowly strangling it.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
We do hamstring shops. My wife is a baker and shop assistant for a national chain and the rules on what she can and cannot do regarding shoplifters are ridiculous.
She cannot confront them, cannot stop them leaving the shop, cannot try to get goods back, cannot take images of them, cannot use images from store cameras for anything other than showing to the police, cannot identify and ban shoplifters or prevent them from entering the shop and cannot put up or circulate photos of them either in public or private (such as in the staff room) so that other shop assistants know who they are.
Doing any of these will get her a range of punishments from a formal reprimand to dismissal.
"About 82 percent of Americans who disapprove of Trump say they strongly disapprove of the job he’s doing, but just 57 percent of Trump approvers are strong approvers."
Tells you all you need to know about the potential for net negatives to fall further. Almost half of his remaining supporters aren't enthusiastic.
I really think mid terms could be a "major surprise on the downside" event for the GOP.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
Excellent questions.
Maybe it's time for a 'stand my ground' law in the UK, which allows wide lattitude so store security staff can behave like Las Vegas casino security staff.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
We do hamstring shops. My wife is a baker and shop assistant for a national chain and the rules on what she can and cannot do regarding shoplifters are ridiculous.
She cannot confront them, cannot stop them leaving the shop, cannot try to get goods back, cannot take images of them, cannot use images from store cameras for anything other than showing to the police, cannot identify and ban shoplifters or prevent them from entering the shop and cannot put up or circulate photos of them either in public or private (such as in the staff room) so that other shop assistants know who they are.
Doing any of these will get her a range of punishments from a formal reprimand to dismissal.
My sympathies. I still think there needs to be a complete reworking of ankle tags managed by AI. You rob a shop, you are tagged for a few years where you are only allowed a route to work and home. If you go outside of that route it’s starts screeching. You cannot walk into a shop or a pub without being ejected immediately. It allows people to work and be home not prison but stops them from being a blight on society. If your alarm goes off it gets sent up a chain to a human who then authorises a stint in prison.
Just an aside to add to the comments earlier regarding Badenoch.
I hadn't seen the pictures of her on the oil rig earlier in the week., Having now seen it I am rather amused.
The rig in question - The Well-Safe Protector - is no longer a drilling rig. It is one of three rigs owned by Well-Safe and converted specifically to do well abandonments.
Shame her advisors didn't do their research.
I don't think it's a shame, or particularly significant. It was a photo op, and she made the most of it.
She is there to promote opening up the North Sea and to do so she uses a rig whose purpose is to help shut it down. Hardly the best photo op.
The sensible rebuttal to your perfect criticism is that she had to do it on a rig that was there for decommissioning (I think that was your criticism) is that it’s a sad day where she had to go to such a rig .
This is closer to the truth than you know. I had coffee on Wednesday with an old friend of mine - a drilling superintendent who works up the hill from me at Kingswells. He has just taken over control of a semi-sub (designed for medium to deep water operations) which will be doing abandonments for the next few years. We were trying to work out if there are any other semis still drilling in the UKCS and we were shocked to realise we couldn't think of any. My last two rigs which I was on a couple of years ago - the Ocean Great White and the COSL Innovator - have both moved to long term contracts in Norway. I don't actually think there is a single other rig available in the UKCS with the exception of the 3 Well-Safe decommissioning rigs. And world wide there is a shortage of rigs.
The rest of the world is in the middle of a very long oil boom and we have shut up shop.
When you combine the shortage of rigs with the current UK tax treatment for exploration, it's no great surprise that there's nothing going on then. It's heads you lose, tails the government wins. And boy does it cost you a lot to spin that coin.
That's right, but it can be generalised to the rest of the economy.
Why try and achieve anything when you know the government's going to steal much of what you make?
The North Sea is perhaps a polar example, but it just shows that, since the panedmic, and especially since the last election, the government has gone from milking the cow to slowly strangling it.
I would argue the UK has been fucking up North Sea taxation for at least twenty years. And maybe longer.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
We do hamstring shops. My wife is a baker and shop assistant for a national chain and the rules on what she can and cannot do regarding shoplifters are ridiculous.
She cannot confront them, cannot stop them leaving the shop, cannot try to get goods back, cannot take images of them, cannot use images from store cameras for anything other than showing to the police, cannot identify and ban shoplifters or prevent them from entering the shop and cannot put up or circulate photos of them either in public or private (such as in the staff room) so that other shop assistants know who they are.
Doing any of these will get her a range of punishments from a formal reprimand to dismissal.
All of that needs to change. Reasonable force to stop shoplifters should be allowed, and if they - the shoplifters - get slightly injured in the process, it's their fault, because they started it.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
We do hamstring shops. My wife is a baker and shop assistant for a national chain and the rules on what she can and cannot do regarding shoplifters are ridiculous.
She cannot confront them, cannot stop them leaving the shop, cannot try to get goods back, cannot take images of them, cannot use images from store cameras for anything other than showing to the police, cannot identify and ban shoplifters or prevent them from entering the shop and cannot put up or circulate photos of them either in public or private (such as in the staff room) so that other shop assistants know who they are.
Doing any of these will get her a range of punishments from a formal reprimand to dismissal.
My sympathies. I still think there needs to be a complete reworking of ankle tags managed by AI. You rob a shop, you are tagged for a few years where you are only allowed a route to work and home. If you go outside of that route it’s starts screeching. You cannot walk into a shop or a pub without being ejected immediately. It allows people to work and be home not prison but stops them from being a blight on society. If your alarm goes off it gets sent up a chain to a human who then authorises a stint in prison.
The Tesco Local round the corner has an interesting solution.
A rather dodgy cousin of the manager hangs around. And gets stuck in on shop lifters. He's been taken to court several times. But he isn't paid or employed by the store.
Can anyone else come up with original, satirical, political nicknames?
Yes
Do you have any PB examples, since Chris Creases Huhne?
THE GAYLORDING PONCEYBOOTS
This has never been bettered, in the history of British political nicknaming
That does resound, even nearly twenty years on; I know exactly who you mean
I prefer a nickname with a hint of wordplay
That was coined by my stalker, who is, to be fair, a genius, so none of us can hope to match him
But I was quite pleased with
Skyr Toolmakersson
Which captures Sir Keir's blandness - like Icelandic yoghurt, skyr, but also combined his two stupid first names "Sir Keir" into one easy to type four letter word, Skyr, and also adds more IcelandIc-ness with his constant whining about his Toolmaker dad: Toolmakersson
So there is quite a lot of wordplay there. But, I confess, it is not as profoundly intense as THE GAYLORDING PONCEYBOOTS
"As rich as Creases" remains one of the all-time PB highpoints. Who created it? @stjohn?
I agree.
This was arguably the acme of PB punning and I would love to claim it was my invention - but it wasn’t.
I can only truthfully report that I was a witness to the event in real time and that I sort of remember where I was, (as with the first moon landing), as PB history was being made.
It was in the pre-laptop era, (for me anyway) and if I recall correctly, I was sat at home in front of a small Amstrad style box-shaped PC as the iconic words “As rich as Creases” appeared on my screen. In one glorious moment, the profligate trouser press using, millionaire Lib Dem grandee, Chris Huhne became immortalised for a generation of PBers and a PB blogging legend was born.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
Bring back the stocks.
Would be a great tourist attraction on Tower Hill or in this case Clapham Common.
People would pay good money to be able to pelt chavs with rotten eggs.
I could t see the bit where MBS had his crew mock Zelensky for not dressing appropriately (in the Whitehouse it seems that now oversized dull oxfords and bad suits).
Can anyone else come up with original, satirical, political nicknames?
Yes
Do you have any PB examples, since Chris Creases Huhne?
THE GAYLORDING PONCEYBOOTS
This has never been bettered, in the history of British political nicknaming
That does resound, even nearly twenty years on; I know exactly who you mean
I prefer a nickname with a hint of wordplay
That was coined by my stalker, who is, to be fair, a genius, so none of us can hope to match him
But I was quite pleased with
Skyr Toolmakersson
Which captures Sir Keir's blandness - like Icelandic yoghurt, skyr, but also combined his two stupid first names "Sir Keir" into one easy to type four letter word, Skyr, and also adds more IcelandIc-ness with his constant whining about his Toolmaker dad: Toolmakersson
So there is quite a lot of wordplay there. But, I confess, it is not as profoundly intense as THE GAYLORDING PONCEYBOOTS
"As rich as Creases" remains one of the all-time PB highpoints. Who created it? @stjohn?
I agree.
This was arguably the acme of PB punning and I would love to claim it was my invention - but it wasn’t.
I can only truthfully report that I was a witness to the event in real time and that I sort of remember where I was, (as with the first moon landing), as PB history was being made.
It was in the pre-laptop era, (for me anyway) and if I recall correctly, I was sat at home in front of a small Amstrad style box-shaped PC as the iconic words “As rich as Creases” appeared on my screen. In one glorious moment, the profligate trouser press using, millionaire Lib Dem grandee, Chris Huhne became immortalised for a generation of PBers and a PB blogging legend was born.
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
We do hamstring shops. My wife is a baker and shop assistant for a national chain and the rules on what she can and cannot do regarding shoplifters are ridiculous.
She cannot confront them, cannot stop them leaving the shop, cannot try to get goods back, cannot take images of them, cannot use images from store cameras for anything other than showing to the police, cannot identify and ban shoplifters or prevent them from entering the shop and cannot put up or circulate photos of them either in public or private (such as in the staff room) so that other shop assistants know who they are.
Doing any of these will get her a range of punishments from a formal reprimand to dismissal.
How much of than is actually mandated by law, and how much by her employer's desire to avoid litigation ?
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
We do hamstring shops. My wife is a baker and shop assistant for a national chain and the rules on what she can and cannot do regarding shoplifters are ridiculous.
She cannot confront them, cannot stop them leaving the shop, cannot try to get goods back, cannot take images of them, cannot use images from store cameras for anything other than showing to the police, cannot identify and ban shoplifters or prevent them from entering the shop and cannot put up or circulate photos of them either in public or private (such as in the staff room) so that other shop assistants know who they are.
Doing any of these will get her a range of punishments from a formal reprimand to dismissal.
How much of than is actually mandated by law, and how much by her employer's desire to avoid litigation ?
I think most of it is from the employer. But the fact they are so worried about litigation is enough to make the situation untenable.
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
The justice system in the UK has no mechanism for dealing with serial petty offenders, which shoplifters tend to be. There was a report in the local rag last year of a woman who got caught stealing from a charity shop - she had over 20 previous convictions for shoplifting, but was still out and about nicking things.
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.
Comments
U.S. will insure losses up to $40 billion for tankers brave enough to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Berkshire Hathaway and Liberty Mutual are among six new insurers with which the federal government is partnering to provide maritime reinsurance to ships traveling through the Persian Gulf.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2026/france-faces-strike-capability-gap-after-us-blocks-gmlrs-missiles-for-foudre-and-thundart-launchers
The refusal, confirmed to Euractiv, comes as France’s rocket artillery fleet shrinks to just nine operational launchers ahead of retirement between 2027 and 2030. Without access to U.S.-made guided rockets, both programs face increased development risk, higher costs, and potential delays. The decision also disrupts assumptions about NATO interoperability and limits the export appeal tied to the widely used GMLRS ecosystem...
A big problem for France in the short term.
A much bigger problem for US arms exporters, longer term.
Sky News.
Very clever
Now, many years later, they are looking at it - this time with 8 engines.
The problem with Nimrod was interesting. The oft told story was that Nimrod was a Comet, converted. That isn't true. Nimrods were originally a purpose built *variant*. And the quality conceal in the British industry of the 1960s was shocking.
At the end of WWI, building planes on jigs was standard. A bunch of enthusiastic apprentices at Sopwith installed the wrong wings on some planes - because they were made to fit the same mounting structure. that was *1918*
In WWII, mechanics at squadrons would piece together hybrids - Crossland, in his autobiography talks about an early mark Spitfire which they bolted on a late model Merlin, the wrong wings etc - to create an insanely fast squadron hack that was used for training.
Nimrods were built with astounding carelessness. Some bits were *inches* out. So after the Haddon-Cave report on (ironically) the Nimrod crash in Afghanistan, air safety caught up with them. Each Nimrod was structurally different. Rebuilding them as planned would mean not type certification (or grandfathering it) but individually assessing their air worthiness. They didn't match the original design.
Even more fun was how the conversion was bodged.
So you ended up with planes that no-one would sign off as safe to fly.
I guess that's the logical endstate. All exits from Trumpworld closed.
The Iranians aren’t going to harm the pilot as they want to use him as leverage.
Do we want a rust bucket or something that is actually worth what it will be insured for?
This is M&S retail crime.
https://x.com/defence_ida/status/2039744241887326343
United Arab Emirates has withdrawn from funding the Rafale F5 program after France declined to offer technology transfer and return on investment.
The rest of the world is in the middle of a very long oil boom and we have shut up shop.
Just another day when he's reached a new record low (-17.5%). A repeat of yesterday. And of the day before that.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin
There are dozens of High Streets in London and nowhere near enough Police to adequately patrol them all to the satisfaction of M&S it would seem.
It's little coincidence this has started with the Easter school holidays in London and I imagine social media played a part.
The alternative is to empower store security in some way - should we allow them to carry Tasers for instance or would we go further? I know store and shopping centre security staff do liaise with Police and have combined training so everyone knows what they can and cannot and should and should not do.
How far should we go to allow stores to secure themselves? What powers should we grant store security personnel to detain or to use force to detain shoplifters for example? How do we ensure such powers aren't used inappropriately?
GCC voices now calling for boycotting France for blocking a UNSC resolution to open Hormuz Strait.
Why try and achieve anything when you know the government's going to steal much of what you make?
The North Sea is perhaps a polar example, but it just shows that, since the panedmic, and especially since the last election, the government has gone from milking the cow to slowly strangling it.
She cannot confront them, cannot stop them leaving the shop, cannot try to get goods back, cannot take images of them, cannot use images from store cameras for anything other than showing to the police, cannot identify and ban shoplifters or prevent them from entering the shop and cannot put up or circulate photos of them either in public or private (such as in the staff room) so that other shop assistants know who they are.
Doing any of these will get her a range of punishments from a formal reprimand to dismissal.
Tells you all you need to know about the potential for net negatives to fall further. Almost half of his remaining supporters aren't enthusiastic.
I really think mid terms could be a "major surprise on the downside" event for the GOP.
Maybe it's time for a 'stand my ground' law in the UK, which allows wide lattitude so store security staff can behave like Las Vegas casino security staff.
A rather dodgy cousin of the manager hangs around. And gets stuck in on shop lifters. He's been taken to court several times. But he isn't paid or employed by the store.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-192958474
This was arguably the acme of PB punning and I would love to claim it was my invention - but it wasn’t.
I can only truthfully report that I was a witness to the event in real time and that I sort of remember where I was, (as with the first moon landing), as PB history was being made.
It was in the pre-laptop era, (for me anyway) and if I recall correctly, I was sat at home in front of a small Amstrad style box-shaped PC as the iconic words “As rich as Creases” appeared on my screen. In one glorious moment, the profligate trouser press using, millionaire Lib Dem grandee, Chris Huhne became immortalised for a generation of PBers and a PB blogging legend was born.
I did however coin the word ‘lagershed’. 😀
Would be a great tourist attraction on Tower Hill or in this case Clapham Common.
People would pay good money to be able to pelt chavs with rotten eggs.
It's the other guy.
The emergence of Ukraine as a global actor is an interesting subplot. They also have the largest underground gas storage capacity in Europe.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2040184433475506261
Sadiq Khan's police protection officers have been suspended after leaving a bag of guns on the street outside of his home on Tuesday evening
Sort of mistake anyone might make...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVI9t2GDMnI
But some of that also stems from the fact they know that even if they detain the shoplifter and hand the over to the police, the chance of any meaningful prosecution is zero. Why risk your employees catching the criminals when the police or courts will just let them go?
https://x.com/MazMHussain/status/2040195681944572413
To my mind no-one with 20 convictions for anything should be on the streets.