They say the Lion and the Lizard keep The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep: And Bahrám, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.
But elf n safety: it will take the place centuries to fall down, and it'll be an insurance nightmare while it does.
The rationale for letting the place go to rack and ruin is interesting, but it won't happen. Besides the fact that it would likely require primary legislation to override the existing protections afforded this specific building, stripping an edifice of protection and allowing it to fall into ruin because it is unfashionable and/or expensive to maintain would be hugely controversial. Once you allow one listed building to be abandoned, any landowner, community or organisation burdened with maintaining others can also appeal to be excused the trouble.
It does already happen all the time, though. The owner lets a building rot till it begins to fall on people's heads, or if in a hurry some local ned will carry out a bit of urban improvement.
British exporters have been hit harder by Brexit because they faced border checks from 1 January on shipments to the EU, while Irish and EU exporters to Britain have benefited from a phased in approach the UK government opted for over a 12-month transition period.
They say the Lion and the Lizard keep The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep: And Bahrám, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.
But elf n safety: it will take the place centuries to fall down, and it'll be an insurance nightmare while it does.
The rationale for letting the place go to rack and ruin is interesting, but it won't happen. Besides the fact that it would likely require primary legislation to override the existing protections afforded this specific building, stripping an edifice of protection and allowing it to fall into ruin because it is unfashionable and/or expensive to maintain would be hugely controversial. Once you allow one listed building to be abandoned, any landowner, community or organisation burdened with maintaining others can also appeal to be excused the trouble.
It does already happen all the time, though. The owner lets a building rot till it begins to fall on people's heads, or if in a hurry some local ned will carry out a bit of urban improvement.
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
They say the Lion and the Lizard keep The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep: And Bahrám, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.
But elf n safety: it will take the place centuries to fall down, and it'll be an insurance nightmare while it does.
The rationale for letting the place go to rack and ruin is interesting, but it won't happen. Besides the fact that it would likely require primary legislation to override the existing protections afforded this specific building, stripping an edifice of protection and allowing it to fall into ruin because it is unfashionable and/or expensive to maintain would be hugely controversial. Once you allow one listed building to be abandoned, any landowner, community or organisation burdened with maintaining others can also appeal to be excused the trouble.
It does already happen all the time, though. The owner lets a building rot till it begins to fall on people's heads, or if in a hurry some local ned will carry out a bit of urban improvement.
Not at all sure it would work in this case now. First of all the property in question is owned by a public body; secondly, it would be decidedly risky for one of the locals to indulge in a spot of creative redevelopment by fire. It's not like there would be a lengthy list of suspects in any subsequent police investigation.
For now, superficially, it appears the Taliban are "playing nice" in Kabul.
Well, yes - after all, many reports from Berlin in 1945 said the first wave of Russian troops, the combat soldiers, were correct in their dealings with the German population. The rapes and pillage began with the follow-up and support troops.
How things will be once the world's eyes are elsewhere remains to be seen.
From 1945-89, we maintained a large defensive glacis against a seemingly powerful military threat just two hours from the Rhine. We understood that - we knew what might and perhaps would happen if deterrence failed and war broke out in Central Europe. The options were victory, surrender or annihilation.
Islamic fundamentalism isn't Soviet Communism. In the end, ultimately, the Soviet system proved as brittle as the recently collapsed Afghan Government - with a few exceptions (the Securitate in Romania), no one was prepared to fight and die for Marxism in East Berlin, Prague or Budapest in 1989.
That's the difference between ideology and faith - the latter is so much more powerful. How do you fight or reason with a zealot? You can't - if their end goal is the conversion of your society to one which matches theirs, your options are similarly limited. The problem is the reach of faith is so much greater than it was before. The Internet radicalises individuals far from any actual battlefields.
I don't have any answers - I know we are not the Roman Empire. We may feel comfortable with a Pax Americana but it was never going to work even after 1989. Garrisoning far off countries in an attempt to keep the barbarian from the gate is old thinking unfit for the digital age.
But, Soviet Communism in its heyday was as powerful as Islamism. Their leaders had the will to power, the belief they had the right to rule. That will suddenly vanished.
"Taliban spokesperson- Our women are Muslims and they'll be happy to live within Sharia law"
Of course they are ........
They will if they know the consequences for women of living outwith Sharia law.
Surely the first consequence is the loss of the ability to live?
I think it was Lord Vetinari who recruited a thief as a spy. He became a spy of his own free will. The alternative was to choose of his own free will to be flung into the scorpion pit.
"Taliban spokesperson- Our women are Muslims and they'll be happy to live within Sharia law"
Of course they are ........
They will if they know the consequences for women of living outwith Sharia law.
Surely the first consequence is the loss of the ability to live?
I think it was Lord Vetinari who recruited a thief as a spy. He became a spy of his own free will. The alternative was to choose of his own free will to be flung into the scorpion pit.
Are you sure you're not mixing that up with the DfE's new teacher recruitment plan?
China will end up buying up Afghanistan. The process has already started, hence the Taleban’s indifference to the genocide of the Uighers. It is chump change for the Chinese. Only the Pakistanis will be cross.
"Afghanistan has vast mineral deposits, including coal, copper and iron ore, talc, lithium and uranium, as well as gold, precious stones, oil and gas."
Foreign Policy magazine.
I’m sure, given their commitment to net zero, the Chinese will pass on that.
Will the taliban be present at COP26 ? Tbh living with 6th century values is probably quite low carbon
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.
China will end up buying up Afghanistan. The process has already started, hence the Taleban’s indifference to the genocide of the Uighers. It is chump change for the Chinese. Only the Pakistanis will be cross.
Well, first they destroyed their export industry via production of fentanyl, then they offer to go in and help by building some mines.
Of course, while there is a theoretical land path between Afghanistan and China, getting material out will be extremely expensive - certainly 5-6x more expensive than simply shipping stuff from Africa (which the Chinese have already bought up).
Upgrade the Pakistani rail network and build a couple of branches into Afghanistan. The goods can all be hauled to Karachi. Job done.
Have you looked at Google Maps?
The Chinese built a railway to Lhasa. They could extend a couple of routes across the Afghan-Pak border if they were so minded, I'm sure.
OTOH your remarks about Mongolia's travails are, admittedly, instructive.
The Chinese are already building the Pakistan part. An offshoot to Afghanistan wouldn't be too big an addition.
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
They say the Lion and the Lizard keep The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep: And Bahrám, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.
But elf n safety: it will take the place centuries to fall down, and it'll be an insurance nightmare while it does.
The rationale for letting the place go to rack and ruin is interesting, but it won't happen. Besides the fact that it would likely require primary legislation to override the existing protections afforded this specific building, stripping an edifice of protection and allowing it to fall into ruin because it is unfashionable and/or expensive to maintain would be hugely controversial. Once you allow one listed building to be abandoned, any landowner, community or organisation burdened with maintaining others can also appeal to be excused the trouble.
It does already happen all the time, though. The owner lets a building rot till it begins to fall on people's heads, or if in a hurry some local ned will carry out a bit of urban improvement.
“Went on fire”, as they used to say in Glasgow.
I'm too polite to even comment on that.
I see they arrested someone for the fire in the 'Polish' Catholic chapel in Partick. Likely a loony, but we'll see..
For now, superficially, it appears the Taliban are "playing nice" in Kabul.
Well, yes - after all, many reports from Berlin in 1945 said the first wave of Russian troops, the combat soldiers, were correct in their dealings with the German population. The rapes and pillage began with the follow-up and support troops.
How things will be once the world's eyes are elsewhere remains to be seen.
From 1945-89, we maintained a large defensive glacis against a seemingly powerful military threat just two hours from the Rhine. We understood that - we knew what might and perhaps would happen if deterrence failed and war broke out in Central Europe. The options were victory, surrender or annihilation.
Islamic fundamentalism isn't Soviet Communism. In the end, ultimately, the Soviet system proved as brittle as the recently collapsed Afghan Government - with a few exceptions (the Securitate in Romania), no one was prepared to fight and die for Marxism in East Berlin, Prague or Budapest in 1989.
That's the difference between ideology and faith - the latter is so much more powerful. How do you fight or reason with a zealot? You can't - if their end goal is the conversion of your society to one which matches theirs, your options are similarly limited. The problem is the reach of faith is so much greater than it was before. The Internet radicalises individuals far from any actual battlefields.
I don't have any answers - I know we are not the Roman Empire. We may feel comfortable with a Pax Americana but it was never going to work even after 1989. Garrisoning far off countries in an attempt to keep the barbarian from the gate is old thinking unfit for the digital age.
But, Soviet Communism in its heyday was as powerful as Islamism. Their leaders had the will to power, the belief they had the right to rule. That will suddenly vanished.
Yes. And look at Han China. Their self belief has nothing to do with religion - except as a quasi-mystical exceptionalism - but they’ve been around for 3000 years, for much of that time they’ve been the biggest power in the world, and now they rise to ascendancy again. Much more powerful than Islam
Cultural self confidence is the key. God is one route to it, but there are others. England and then Britain had it in spades from about 1680-1890
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
Why would they go to Afghanistan to plan attacks on the US, when they could go to any number of friendly Islamic countries with much better air links?
Afghanistan has no ability to export terror. It has no money and no functioning economy.
Now, sure, it has the ability to be a place where terrorists hide. If I'd just ordered a terrorist attack, it's the kind of place it would be easy to hide in. But it's a place you'd hide in because there's no infrastructure. It's hard to find you in a village in the middle of the mountains in the middle of nowhere. But it's equally hard to get decent reliable Internet access. And it's very far from anyone who has actual money to pay for a terrorist attack.
Will there be Jihadi training camps in the Afghan desert? Probably. But there are camps in Pakistan and Yemen and Syria today. And those places are a hell of a lot easier to get to than Afghanistan.
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.
Demographics is destiny.
If it's any consolation, China's demographics soon start looking worse than ours.
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”
Do we know anything yet about how Labour and the SNP plan to respond to the Treasury's apparent manoeuvring on this subject? The temptation to protest the plight of the poor neglected old folk (whom, as well all know, never receive any consideration in the making of public policy) must be enormous.
That's assuming Johnson doesn't overrule Sunak and insist on the triple lock being applied in full next year, which is a very big assumption indeed...
They say the Lion and the Lizard keep The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep: And Bahrám, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.
But elf n safety: it will take the place centuries to fall down, and it'll be an insurance nightmare while it does.
The rationale for letting the place go to rack and ruin is interesting, but it won't happen. Besides the fact that it would likely require primary legislation to override the existing protections afforded this specific building, stripping an edifice of protection and allowing it to fall into ruin because it is unfashionable and/or expensive to maintain would be hugely controversial. Once you allow one listed building to be abandoned, any landowner, community or organisation burdened with maintaining others can also appeal to be excused the trouble.
It does already happen all the time, though. The owner lets a building rot till it begins to fall on people's heads, or if in a hurry some local ned will carry out a bit of urban improvement.
“Went on fire”, as they used to say in Glasgow.
I'm too polite to even comment on that.
I see they arrested someone for the fire in the 'Polish' Catholic chapel in Partick. Likely a loony, but we'll see..
Not likely to be a bit of Glaswegian urban improvement, mind. The building was (sadly) very much in use for its intended prupose.
Unity News Network (UNN) @UnityNewsNet BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
Why would they go to Afghanistan to plan attacks on the US, when they could go to any number of friendly Islamic countries with much better air links?
Afghanistan has no ability to export terror. It has no money and no functioning economy.
Now, sure, it has the ability to be a place where terrorists hide. If I'd just ordered a terrorist attack, it's the kind of place it would be easy to hide in. But it's a place you'd hide in because there's no infrastructure. It's hard to find you in a village in the middle of the mountains in the middle of nowhere. But it's equally hard to get decent reliable Internet access. And it's very far from anyone who has actual money to pay for a terrorist attack.
Will there be Jihadi training camps in the Afghan desert? Probably. But there are camps in Pakistan and Yemen and Syria today. And those places are a hell of a lot easier to get to than Afghanistan.
Why do it from there? Well, to taunt the US, for one thing. To rub its nose in its weakness. To destabilise a President. To cause dissension within its political system. And which powers now very interested in Afghanistan might want to do that?
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”
Do we know anything yet about how Labour and the SNP plan to respond to the Treasury's apparent manoeuvring on this subject? The temptation to protest the plight of the poor neglected old folk (whom, as well all know, never receive any consideration in the making of public policy) must be enormous.
That's assuming Johnson doesn't overrule Sunak and insist on the triple lock being applied in full next year, which is a very big assumption indeed...
Support for triple lock is in the SNP Manifesto, I believe. But it is not a devolved area of policy, any more than the State Pension is, so all they can do is ask Mr Johnson nicely.
Unity News Network (UNN) @UnityNewsNet BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."
We were discussing that earlier. MUst be lockdown/antivaxxer types who are always going on about Cl 61, no independista would cite M. C.
British exporters have been hit harder by Brexit because they faced border checks from 1 January on shipments to the EU, while Irish and EU exporters to Britain have benefited from a phased in approach the UK government opted for over a 12-month transition period.
I think it's because the EU needed to increase their number of checks by around 10%, while we needed to double them. Much easier - scale-wise - for them than for us.
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”
Do we know anything yet about how Labour and the SNP plan to respond to the Treasury's apparent manoeuvring on this subject? The temptation to protest the plight of the poor neglected old folk (whom, as well all know, never receive any consideration in the making of public policy) must be enormous.
That's assuming Johnson doesn't overrule Sunak and insist on the triple lock being applied in full next year, which is a very big assumption indeed...
The political games around this are going to be hilarious to watch play out. The pandemic has so far led to the opposition parties pretty much falling in line behind the government, but at some point the gloves are going to have to come off and we get back to politics as usual.
There will be a massive Tory rebellion if anything like 8% is the proposal, which is why it’ll be 3.5% or thereabouts.
To put it bluntly, the choice is a massive pensions rise, higher taxes or higher borrowing. The Chancellor isn’t going to want to raise taxes, and wants to see borrrowing on a sharply downward trajectory by the election - so a normal pensions increase it is then.
From a political optics point of view, the 8% figure is clearly an anomaly, and not an accurate estimate in the change of the cost of living in the last 12 months - and the public realise this.
Pensions are not going to be the only line item affected by the pandemic recession and recovery either, they’re just the first big one to have come up.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Your comment is hurtful. And, you are right to be hurtful.
Of Trump, one could expect no better. He is, after all, President Pussy Grabber, a man who privately admires the most backward and reactionary ideologies that exist in the world.
Of Biden, one could have expected better, because he professes to be better.
And, you are unfortunately, right. Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus.
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.
It's not 1939, I would say, and Britain compared to the US in any case is a flea. The only militaries that will make any significant mark on the world are Russia's, China's, the US's and its NATO aegis, and any pan-European military structure that the UK also wants to be a part of.
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”
Do we know anything yet about how Labour and the SNP plan to respond to the Treasury's apparent manoeuvring on this subject? The temptation to protest the plight of the poor neglected old folk (whom, as well all know, never receive any consideration in the making of public policy) must be enormous.
That's assuming Johnson doesn't overrule Sunak and insist on the triple lock being applied in full next year, which is a very big assumption indeed...
Support for triple lock is in the SNP Manifesto, I believe. But it is not a devolved area of policy, any more than the State Pension is, so all they can do is ask Mr Johnson nicely.
Well, of course, all either of those parties can do is complain because the Conservatives are currently in power at Westminster. The question is, will they? The point being, of course, that it is perfectly possible both to maintain support for the triple lock or some such uprating mechanism in theory, but also to support a one-off correction in practice. Because to give the elderly a substantial pay rise as a direct result of a crisis where almost all of the economic pain has been inflicted on those of working age (especially the young) might be considered a little bit off.
OTOH, in a straight battle between the interests of the old and the young, is anyone going to be remotely interested in taking the side of the latter?
Unity News Network (UNN) @UnityNewsNet BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."
We were discussing that earlier. MUst be lockdown/antivaxxer types who are always going on about Cl 61, no independista would cite M. C.
Brain worms
Scotland Against Lockdown @ScotsNoLockdown · 2h Sovereign Scots lay siege to take back Edinburgh Castle under Common Law, to remove and expose the corrupt political & Admiral system, that the free people of Scotland, the U.K. & Commonwealth, have been forced to live under for many years. Pls support Flag of Scotland
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.
It's not 1939, I would say, and Britain compared to the US in any case is a flea. The only militaries that will make any significant mark on the world are Russia's, China's, the US's and its NATO aegis, and any pan-European military structure that the UK also wants to be a part of.
As an island, it would still be a good idea to maintain a reasonably substantial navy. The idea that it's not worth the bother because the UK is much smaller than the US could easily be expanded into a more general argument for giving up on everything.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Your comment is hurtful. And, you are right to be hurtful.
Of Trump, one could expect no better. He is, after all, President Pussy Grabber, a man who privately admires the most backward and reactionary ideologies that exist in the world.
Of Biden, one could have expected better, because he professes to be better.
And, you are unfortunately, right. Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus.
Yeah well - the world should not be like that. I don't see why I should accept that this is the way things are and should be. And I don't frankly see why I should worry about being hurtful to some nice men. Men - even nice ones - don't seem to really care about us, not deep down, not enough to do things differently.
So tonight I feel frankly indifferent about pandering to their amour propre and a little contemptuous of their views.
So I shall wish you all a good night and a pleasant chat amongst yourselves.
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.
It's not 1939, I would say, and Britain compared to the US in any case is a flea. The only militaries that will make any significant mark on the world are Russia's, China's, the US's and its NATO aegis, and any pan-European military structure that the UK also wants to be a part of.
As an island, it would still be a good idea to maintain a reasonably substantial navy. The idea that it's not worth the bother because the UK is much smaller than the US could easily be expanded into a more general argument for giving up on everything.
The worst feature of modern life is the corrosive cynicism that holds nothing is worth fighting for, one can't do anything good, so just give up in the hope that the end comes after one's passing.
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.
It's not 1939, I would say, and Britain compared to the US in any case is a flea. The only militaries that will make any significant mark on the world are Russia's, China's, the US's and its NATO aegis, and any pan-European military structure that the UK also wants to be a part of.
As an island, it would still be a good idea to maintain a reasonably substantial navy. The idea that it's not worth the bother because the UK is much smaller than the US could easily be expanded into a more general argument for giving up on everything.
I think it's a great argument for being in a military structure with our European allies* independently of, and supplementary to, NATO. There, and in our immediate locality, Britain really can make a difference and exert an influence, both with its navy and elsewhere. It's very much parallel to the much greater economic leverage we had as one of the three main powers in Europe, rather than artificially trying to strain across to areas like the pacific , while acting most fundamentally as almost comically junior partner to the US.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
How are women being treated as collateral damage any more than men? In terms of the Western collaborators murdered, they will be overwhelmingly male. They are having said "fuck em" about them just as much as women. But of course, they are not seen as poor and weak and fair like women, so their deaths are not valued the same.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.
This site would be worse off without Cyclefree's articles. She may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but who would deny that she is morally right?
Unity News Network (UNN) @UnityNewsNet BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."
Tediously, I will be the one to point out that there is no the Magna Carta.
I used to live above a Nando’s. The doorway to my apartment building was also the backdoor for Nando staff. The bins got emptied 7 days a week but it was never enough so I used to have to hop over the rat traps and chicken carcasses on the way out.
Still on the plus side, sometimes you could get stoned enough to forget about that and then it was very convenient having it right there.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Your comment is hurtful. And, you are right to be hurtful.
Of Trump, one could expect no better. He is, after all, President Pussy Grabber, a man who privately admires the most backward and reactionary ideologies that exist in the world.
Of Biden, one could have expected better, because he professes to be better.
And, you are unfortunately, right. Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus.
Wait a second. You expected better from Handsy Joe? The serial sniffer of children’s hair?
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Your comment is hurtful. And, you are right to be hurtful.
Of Trump, one could expect no better. He is, after all, President Pussy Grabber, a man who privately admires the most backward and reactionary ideologies that exist in the world.
Of Biden, one could have expected better, because he professes to be better.
And, you are unfortunately, right. Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus.
Yeah well - the world should not be like that. I don't see why I should accept that this is the way things are and should be. And I don't frankly see why I should worry about being hurtful to some nice men. Men - even nice ones - don't seem to really care about us, not deep down, not enough to do things differently.
So tonight I feel frankly indifferent about pandering to their amour propre and a little contemptuous of their views.
So I shall wish you all a good night and a pleasant chat amongst yourselves.
Obviously you are venting, but I'm not sure what response you want from anyone here, given you would regard any response, however sympathetic, nice or even in full agreement, as being mere pandering.
That isn't arguing you should accept anything, or care about being hurtful to others with that view, no man or woman would think or seek to deny you your opinions I am sure (not successfully at any rate) but I'm somewhat at a loss as to how you think people here should 'do things differently' if words, which is all any of us have, is just pandering to be treated with contempt. That says nothing about how people will choose to respond to that contempt which is on them, and certainly nothing about wider ingrained societal ills, but selfish as it may be for people to care about their own feelings in the face of grander concerns, it will certainly stick in the mind, knowing that truth lies behind every comment you may ever make again.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.
Totally uncalled for.
@Cyclefree is a very respected and excellent contributor and her family have had a very difficult year as have so many others
This forum would be very much the poorer for her leaving and she is worthy of all the support we can give her
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
How are women being treated as collateral damage any more than men? In terms of the Western collaborators murdered, they will be overwhelmingly male. They are having said "fuck em" about them just as much as women. But of course, they are not seen as poor and weak and fair like women, so their deaths are not valued the same.
This is a tragedy on many, many levels. We don't really know what the fate of women in afghanistan, ie the mayor and MP's that have been talking on the news. Maybe they will be subjugated rather than murdered. It isn't good but I would strongly dispute the assumption that their fate is somehow worse than that of the male collaborators as Aslan rightly points out. Women were central to the story of western intervention in Afghanisan, and by having women MPs etc for 20 years there is a social and cultural legacy that it is hard for the taliban to eradicate. Nothing changes the fact that the society that we helped build up was unable to defend itself against the taliban; it is just wrong to exclusively blame men for this.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.
Totally uncalled for.
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?
I used to live above a Nando’s. The doorway to my apartment building was also the backdoor for Nando staff. The bins got emptied 7 days a week but it was never enough so I used to have to hop over the rat traps and chicken carcasses on the way out.
Still on the plus side, sometimes you could get stoned enough to forget about that and then it was very convenient having it right there.
I used to like a Nandos, but personally they lost me with the Covid tyranny that they bought in.
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
Why would they go to Afghanistan to plan attacks on the US, when they could go to any number of friendly Islamic countries with much better air links?
Afghanistan has no ability to export terror. It has no money and no functioning economy.
Now, sure, it has the ability to be a place where terrorists hide. If I'd just ordered a terrorist attack, it's the kind of place it would be easy to hide in. But it's a place you'd hide in because there's no infrastructure. It's hard to find you in a village in the middle of the mountains in the middle of nowhere. But it's equally hard to get decent reliable Internet access. And it's very far from anyone who has actual money to pay for a terrorist attack.
Will there be Jihadi training camps in the Afghan desert? Probably. But there are camps in Pakistan and Yemen and Syria today. And those places are a hell of a lot easier to get to than Afghanistan.
Why do it from there? Well, to taunt the US, for one thing. To rub its nose in its weakness. To destabilise a President. To cause dissension within its political system. And which powers now very interested in Afghanistan might want to do that?
I can think of two.
Well, it's possible.
But Afghanistan in 2021 is a very different place to 2001.
In 2001, heroin was made with opium, and that kept the cash flowing to Afghanistan.
In 2021, heroin is being outcompeted by synthetic opiates, especially fentanyl. Heroin overdose deaths are actually falling in the US (and have been for several years), even as overall opiate deaths are going through the roof.
One of the reasons why the Taliban have been victorious is because Afghanistan has been struggling with low prices for its only large export crop. And I suspect your average Afghani opium farmer doesn't know that Chinese fentanyl is the problem, rather than the central government in Kabul.
The new Taliban government is going to be extremely cash constrained. Don't forget that more than 10% of Afghanistan's legal exports were cell phone services to visiting Americans. (And which also provided a substantial chunk of tax revenues.)
So, sure, the Taliban could decide to act as you suggest. But they are cash constrained, and reliant on the charity of others. And mounting expensive foreign terror campaigns against people who can use a drone to knock out the Naghlu hydropwer plant that supplies Kabul with all its electricity is a very risky proposition.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.
Totally uncalled for.
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?
Meh, I didn't take it personally. But you clearly did, and thought the best response was to respond in kind.
On such a complex subject where there is highly unlikely to be unanimity of opinion and which will probably be heatedly political, that looks like a sensible opening motion. Should consensus on specifics emerge I should think it could be incorporated, and if not the debate itself is sufficient record of the views of the House.
I used to live above a Nando’s. The doorway to my apartment building was also the backdoor for Nando staff. The bins got emptied 7 days a week but it was never enough so I used to have to hop over the rat traps and chicken carcasses on the way out.
Still on the plus side, sometimes you could get stoned enough to forget about that and then it was very convenient having it right there.
I used to like a Nandos, but personally they lost me with the Covid tyranny that they bought in.
Spicy chicken is an awesome invention. Nando’s do it ok but not the best. Assenheims 56 is the best.
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
And they're right to think that.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.
It's not 1939, I would say, and Britain compared to the US in any case is a flea. The only militaries that will make any significant mark on the world are Russia's, China's, the US's and its NATO aegis, and any pan-European military structure that the UK also wants to be a part of.
As an island, it would still be a good idea to maintain a reasonably substantial navy. The idea that it's not worth the bother because the UK is much smaller than the US could easily be expanded into a more general argument for giving up on everything.
The worst feature of modern life is the corrosive cynicism that holds nothing is worth fighting for, one can't do anything good, so just give up in the hope that the end comes after one's passing.
I very much agree with this in one sense. Cynicism is a bane.
But if everyone was to decide nothing is worth fighting for - as in war and killing - then that would actually be terrific.
Ghost of Christmas past must have visited last night.
I expect there'll be a bit of competition between powers about how many refugees to accept. It'll make us feel better about ourselves, but a bidding war like that will still benefit the people too.
Once again Biden has completely sidelined the EU and most of Europe. His actual policy wrt the EU is basically the same as Trump. The rhetoric is warmer but there seems to be little difference in actual policy. The UK has been consulted and kept in the loop as expected with Boris and Biden speaking on the phone. No other European leader or EU politician has been, not even France.
I worry that this stance from Biden will hasten the EU's Russia/China focus. As I said yesterday, Boris' comment about not engaging with the Taliban had an entirely different audience than what the idiots on twitter think. It was squarely aimed at Germany and other EU nations who are happy to knuckle under China and Russia.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.
Totally uncalled for.
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?
Meh, I didn't take it personally. But you clearly did, and thought the best response was to respond in kind.
You aren't making a great deal of sense. How do you have the option of "not taking it personally"? Is it the case that your reaction to women being harmed is "fuck 'em"? If not, do you not mind at all the suggestion that it is? And I am not" responding in kind". I am not someone whose response to women being harmed is "fuck 'em". Cyclefree, on the other hand, is a turgid bore. So I don't really see the equivalence?
I remembered this result when it was reported at the time. Turns out an experiment about honesty is most likely a massive fraud. The basic numerical analysis is utterly damning.
Given that it is auto insurance based I thought it might be relevant to @rcs1000 's interests.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.
Totally uncalled for.
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?
Meh, I didn't take it personally. But you clearly did, and thought the best response was to respond in kind.
You aren't making a great deal of sense. How do you have the option of "not taking it personally"? Is it the case that your reaction to women being harmed is "fuck 'em"? If not, do you not mind at all the suggestion that it is? And I am not" responding in kind". I am not someone whose response to women being harmed is "fuck 'em". Cyclefree, on the other hand, is a turgid bore. So I don't really see the equivalence?
Because I choose not to? It's quite easy. She's clearly angry about the situation, which is understandable.
I used to live above a Nando’s. The doorway to my apartment building was also the backdoor for Nando staff. The bins got emptied 7 days a week but it was never enough so I used to have to hop over the rat traps and chicken carcasses on the way out.
Still on the plus side, sometimes you could get stoned enough to forget about that and then it was very convenient having it right there.
I used to like a Nandos, but personally they lost me with the Covid tyranny that they bought in.
Spicy chicken is an awesome invention. Nando’s do it ok but not the best. Assenheims 56 is the best.
British exporters have been hit harder by Brexit because they faced border checks from 1 January on shipments to the EU, while Irish and EU exporters to Britain have benefited from a phased in approach the UK government opted for over a 12-month transition period.
I think it's because the EU needed to increase their number of checks by around 10%, while we needed to double them. Much easier - scale-wise - for them than for us.
Well, and British consumers will notice problems with imports more than exports.
But customs barriers were the whole point of Brexit. There would be no point if we just followed EU policy, no matter if it is more sensible.
Unity News Network (UNN) @UnityNewsNet BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."
Tediously, I will be the one to point out that there is no the Magna Carta.
Also, does it apply in Scotland?
(also I'd argue that, Latin not having articles, The Great Charter, a Great Charter, and Great Charter, are all equally valid translations of Magna Carta, depending on context)
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Is there any evidence that women are less in favour of wars than men, generally speaking?
British exporters have been hit harder by Brexit because they faced border checks from 1 January on shipments to the EU, while Irish and EU exporters to Britain have benefited from a phased in approach the UK government opted for over a 12-month transition period.
I think it's because the EU needed to increase their number of checks by around 10%, while we needed to double them. Much easier - scale-wise - for them than for us.
Well, and British consumers will notice problems with imports more than exports.
But customs barriers were the whole point of Brexit. There would be no point if we just followed EU policy, no matter if it is more sensible.
No they're not. We believe in free trade. The only reason to have customs checks on EU imports is that WTO likes us to. We have a tariff and quota free deal. Checks are *not* necessary.
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.
Totally uncalled for.
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?
Meh, I didn't take it personally. But you clearly did, and thought the best response was to respond in kind.
You aren't making a great deal of sense. How do you have the option of "not taking it personally"? Is it the case that your reaction to women being harmed is "fuck 'em"? If not, do you not mind at all the suggestion that it is? And I am not" responding in kind". I am not someone whose response to women being harmed is "fuck 'em". Cyclefree, on the other hand, is a turgid bore. So I don't really see the equivalence?
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.
I remembered this result when it was reported at the time. Turns out an experiment about honesty is most likely a massive fraud. The basic numerical analysis is utterly damning.
Given that it is auto insurance based I thought it might be relevant to @rcs1000 's interests.
Comments
British exporters have been hit harder by Brexit because they faced border checks from 1 January on shipments to the EU, while Irish and EU exporters to Britain have benefited from a phased in approach the UK government opted for over a 12-month transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/17/exports-from-ireland-to-great-britain-soar-in-post-brexit-trade-imbalance?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
I think it was Lord Vetinari who recruited a thief as a spy. He became a spy of his own free will. The alternative was to choose of his own free will to be flung into the scorpion pit.
A live stream posted on social media by one of the group claims they've "seized the building".
Police Scotland has confirmed officers are speaking to those involved.
https://twitter.com/imhopewebb/status/1427722229484249093
There used to be a squad of RMP billeted in the Castle. This might not end well
"I was sorry to hear about that fire at your Warehouse"
"Oh, the fire's no till next week..."
Tbh living with 6th century values is probably quite low carbon
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.
https://multimedia.scmp.com/news/china/article/One-Belt-One-Road/pakistan.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/retirees-lose-11000-state-pension-triple-lock-fiddle/
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”
It's ironic that that's what the world needs more of.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Cultural self confidence is the key. God is one route to it, but there are others. England and then Britain had it in spades from about 1680-1890
Afghanistan has no ability to export terror. It has no money and no functioning economy.
Now, sure, it has the ability to be a place where terrorists hide. If I'd just ordered a terrorist attack, it's the kind of place it would be easy to hide in. But it's a place you'd hide in because there's no infrastructure. It's hard to find you in a village in the middle of the mountains in the middle of nowhere. But it's equally hard to get decent reliable Internet access. And it's very far from anyone who has actual money to pay for a terrorist attack.
Will there be Jihadi training camps in the Afghan desert? Probably. But there are camps in Pakistan and Yemen and Syria today. And those places are a hell of a lot easier to get to than Afghanistan.
If it's any consolation, China's demographics soon start looking worse than ours.
That's assuming Johnson doesn't overrule Sunak and insist on the triple lock being applied in full next year, which is a very big assumption indeed...
Unity News Network (UNN)
@UnityNewsNet
BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."
I can think of two.
There will be a massive Tory rebellion if anything like 8% is the proposal, which is why it’ll be 3.5% or thereabouts.
To put it bluntly, the choice is a massive pensions rise, higher taxes or higher borrowing. The Chancellor isn’t going to want to raise taxes, and wants to see borrrowing on a sharply downward trajectory by the election - so a normal pensions increase it is then.
From a political optics point of view, the 8% figure is clearly an anomaly, and not an accurate estimate in the change of the cost of living in the last 12 months - and the public realise this.
Pensions are not going to be the only line item affected by the pandemic recession and recovery either, they’re just the first big one to have come up.
Of Trump, one could expect no better. He is, after all, President Pussy Grabber, a man who privately admires the most backward and reactionary ideologies that exist in the world.
Of Biden, one could have expected better, because he professes to be better.
And, you are unfortunately, right. Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus.
Tim Tebow was released by the Jacksonville Jaguars after one preseason game, ending his NFL return https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1427729247666331648/photo/1
OTOH, in a straight battle between the interests of the old and the young, is anyone going to be remotely interested in taking the side of the latter?
Scotland Against Lockdown
@ScotsNoLockdown
· 2h
Sovereign Scots lay siege to take back Edinburgh Castle under Common Law, to remove and expose the corrupt political & Admiral system, that the free people of Scotland, the U.K. & Commonwealth, have been forced to live under for many years. Pls support Flag of Scotland
https://facebook.com/janie.walsh/
It would have seriously fked with the heads of the taliban and dismatled the Afghan patriarchy at the same time.
They would have put up far more of a fight.
Sometimes we should never say always.
So tonight I feel frankly indifferent about pandering to their amour propre and a little contemptuous of their views.
So I shall wish you all a good night and a pleasant chat amongst yourselves.
This site would be worse off without Cyclefree's articles. She may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but who would deny that she is morally right?
Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes, Midsomer Murders, detectorists… what an old fogey I am.
Still on the plus side, sometimes you could get stoned enough to forget about that and then it was very convenient having it right there.
.@GregAbbott_TX is at the Republican Club at Heritage Ranch meeting tonight! https://twitter.com/AbbottCampaign/status/1427422628248227841/video/1
Today
CNN: Texas Governor Greg Abbott has tested positive for Covid-19, according to a statement from his office.
That isn't arguing you should accept anything, or care about being hurtful to others with that view, no man or woman would think or seek to deny you your opinions I am sure (not successfully at any rate) but I'm somewhat at a loss as to how you think people here should 'do things differently' if words, which is all any of us have, is just pandering to be treated with contempt. That says nothing about how people will choose to respond to that contempt which is on them, and certainly nothing about wider ingrained societal ills, but selfish as it may be for people to care about their own feelings in the face of grander concerns, it will certainly stick in the mind, knowing that truth lies behind every comment you may ever make again.
This forum would be very much the poorer for her leaving and she is worthy of all the support we can give her
I fully understand her despair
We don't really know what the fate of women in afghanistan, ie the mayor and MP's that have been talking on the news. Maybe they will be subjugated rather than murdered. It isn't good but I would strongly dispute the assumption that their fate is somehow worse than that of the male collaborators as Aslan rightly points out.
Women were central to the story of western intervention in Afghanisan, and by having women MPs etc for 20 years there is a social and cultural legacy that it is hard for the taliban to eradicate.
Nothing changes the fact that the society that we helped build up was unable to defend itself against the taliban; it is just wrong to exclusively blame men for this.
Nice and forensic
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1427630737424101383
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?
But Afghanistan in 2021 is a very different place to 2001.
In 2001, heroin was made with opium, and that kept the cash flowing to Afghanistan.
In 2021, heroin is being outcompeted by synthetic opiates, especially fentanyl. Heroin overdose deaths are actually falling in the US (and have been for several years), even as overall opiate deaths are going through the roof.
One of the reasons why the Taliban have been victorious is because Afghanistan has been struggling with low prices for its only large export crop. And I suspect your average Afghani opium farmer doesn't know that Chinese fentanyl is the problem, rather than the central government in Kabul.
The new Taliban government is going to be extremely cash constrained. Don't forget that more than 10% of Afghanistan's legal exports were cell phone services to visiting Americans. (And which also provided a substantial chunk of tax revenues.)
So, sure, the Taliban could decide to act as you suggest. But they are cash constrained, and reliant on the charity of others. And mounting expensive foreign terror campaigns against people who can use a drone to knock out the Naghlu hydropwer plant that supplies Kabul with all its electricity is a very risky proposition.
New Afghan Resettlement Scheme will allow -
5,000 Afghan refugees to come to the UK in the first year,
20,000 thousand overall.
(as reported in the 'i') https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1427736849058041861
My wife went once and had lamb. Her niece found this very amusing but was too polite to say anything at the time.
Also, I don't get what is "cheeky" about tucking in to one of their meals.
I've had the real deal in Portugal. And enjoyed it.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.
But if everyone was to decide nothing is worth fighting for - as in war and killing - then that would actually be terrific.
I expect there'll be a bit of competition between powers about how many refugees to accept. It'll make us feel better about ourselves, but a bidding war like that will still benefit the people too.
I worry that this stance from Biden will hasten the EU's Russia/China focus. As I said yesterday, Boris' comment about not engaging with the Taliban had an entirely different audience than what the idiots on twitter think. It was squarely aimed at Germany and other EU nations who are happy to knuckle under China and Russia.
Given that it is auto insurance based I thought it might be relevant to @rcs1000 's interests.
https://twitter.com/jpsimmon/status/1427628315939049491?s=19
https://datacolada.org/98
EDIT: omg, I have just got to the font analysis. This is wild.
But customs barriers were the whole point of Brexit. There would be no point if we just followed EU policy, no matter if it is more sensible.
(also I'd argue that, Latin not having articles, The Great Charter, a Great Charter, and Great Charter, are all equally valid translations of Magna Carta, depending on context)