Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

YouGov finds little support for re-entering the Afghan war – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,202
    Nando’s is overpriced shite.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,832
    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    In other Scottish news - this will interest a number of PBers given the recent discvussion of Rum
    :

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/kinloch-castle-curated-decay-ruin-scotland

    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.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,657
    Why, Mr Gove?

    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
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More like Nandon'ts, amiright?

    BBC News - Nando's shuts restaurants as it runs short of supplies

    https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1427718254567510022


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58249337

    I didn't care when KFC experienced trouble, but this is far more serious.
    Yes, but if the problem is the Pingdemic, that's pretty much over now and things will get back to normal over the next couple of weeks.

    Let's see.
    Those weeks shall feel like decades.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,544
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    In other Scottish news - this will interest a number of PBers given the recent discvussion of Rum
    :

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/kinloch-castle-curated-decay-ruin-scotland

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,544
    tlg86 said:

    Nando’s is overpriced shite.

    Never been. Am I missing anything?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    tlg86 said:

    Nando’s is overpriced shite.

    Overpriced I'll grant you, but the rest is fighting words. My monocole popped out in shock.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,206
    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,569
    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    In other Scottish news - this will interest a number of PBers given the recent discvussion of Rum
    :

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/kinloch-castle-curated-decay-ruin-scotland

    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,236
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,796
    IshmaelZ said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1427649038397100033

    "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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,290
    NEW: Police are currently dealing with a group of people refusing to leave the grounds of Edinburgh Castle.

    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
  • ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Floater said:

    https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1427649038397100033

    "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?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,294
    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    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
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,569
    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,097
    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    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.

    https://multimedia.scmp.com/news/china/article/One-Belt-One-Road/pakistan.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,832
    Well it looks like the “Give the pensioners their 8%” campaign has started in earnest - with some ridiculously overblown language:

    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.”
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,292
    Poor Afghan soldiers: apparently they don't want to shoot people or get shot at.
    It's ironic that that's what the world needs more of.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,206
    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."
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,790
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    In other Scottish news - this will interest a number of PBers given the recent discvussion of Rum
    :

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/kinloch-castle-curated-decay-ruin-scotland

    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..
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,787
    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    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
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,425
    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,425
    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,569
    Sandpit said:

    Well it looks like the “Give the pensioners their 8%” campaign has started in earnest - with some ridiculously overblown language:

    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.”

    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...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,544

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    In other Scottish news - this will interest a number of PBers given the recent discvussion of Rum
    :

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/kinloch-castle-curated-decay-ruin-scotland

    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,912
    Poor Magna didn’t die in vain…


    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."
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,206
    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,544
    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well it looks like the “Give the pensioners their 8%” campaign has started in earnest - with some ridiculously overblown language:

    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.”

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,544
    DougSeal said:

    Poor Magna didn’t die in vain…


    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,425

    Why, Mr Gove?

    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

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,832
    edited August 2021
    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well it looks like the “Give the pensioners their 8%” campaign has started in earnest - with some ridiculously overblown language:

    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.”

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,659


    Owen Jones Rose
    @OwenJones84
    What TV series is your default comfort watch you always return to? Mine’s This Life. Go!





    Blimey. Some of the answers? Great TV shows, but "comfort watch"??

    Suchet's Poirot.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,290
    rcs1000 said:

    Much easier - scale-wise - for them than for us.

    But, but, but, we held all the cards....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,236
    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,290
    Niche post...

    Tim Tebow was released by the Jacksonville Jaguars after one preseason game, ending his NFL return https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1427729247666331648/photo/1
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,255
    edited August 2021
    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,569
    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well it looks like the “Give the pensioners their 8%” campaign has started in earnest - with some ridiculously overblown language:

    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.”

    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?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,790
    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    Poor Magna didn’t die in vain…


    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

    https://facebook.com/janie.walsh/
  • pingping Posts: 1,651
    With hindsight, over the last 20 years we should have probably trained up the Afghan Army as a female only fighting force.

    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.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,292
    "Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus."

    Sometimes we should never say always.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,590
    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,569

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,206
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,236
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,255
    edited August 2021
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 902
    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,247
    DougSeal said:

    Poor Magna didn’t die in vain…


    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.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638


    Owen Jones Rose
    @OwenJones84
    What TV series is your default comfort watch you always return to? Mine’s This Life. Go!





    Blimey. Some of the answers? Great TV shows, but "comfort watch"??

    Suchet's Poirot.
    That’s one of mine!

    Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes, Midsomer Murders, detectorists… what an old fogey I am.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 3,412
    tlg86 said:

    Nando’s is overpriced shite.

    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.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 3,412
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,425
    edited August 2021
    isam said:


    Owen Jones Rose
    @OwenJones84
    What TV series is your default comfort watch you always return to? Mine’s This Life. Go!





    Blimey. Some of the answers? Great TV shows, but "comfort watch"??

    Suchet's Poirot.
    That’s one of mine!

    Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes, Midsomer Murders, detectorists… what an old fogey I am.
    My wife rotates Midsomer Murders, Suchet's Poirot and Columbo!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,290
    Yesterday

    .@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.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:


    Owen Jones Rose
    @OwenJones84
    What TV series is your default comfort watch you always return to? Mine’s This Life. Go!





    Blimey. Some of the answers? Great TV shows, but "comfort watch"??

    Suchet's Poirot.
    That’s one of mine!

    Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes, Midsomer Murders, detectorists… what an old fogey I am.
    My wife rotates Midsomer Murders, Suchet's Poirot and Columbo!
    Columbo is another one on the list. Fantastic
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    edited August 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,121
    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nando’s is overpriced shite.

    Never been. Am I missing anything?
    Chicken
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,290
    BREAKING: @POTUS has spoken to ⁦@BorisJohnson⁩ this evening about situation in #Afghanistan - pointed line from Number 10 readout is the PM stressing importance of not losing gains of last 20 years. Joe Biden in speech yesterday said nation building was not why US was there https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1427738432332308488/photo/1
  • RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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 fully understand her despair
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,258
    Aslan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,290
    Am told the current wording of tomorrow's debate when Parliament is recalled is: "That this House has considered the situation in Afghanistan".

    Nice and forensic

    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1427630737424101383
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,590
    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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?

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,258
    moonshine said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nando’s is overpriced shite.

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,425
    Cyclefree said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,290
    BREAKING -
    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
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,121
    The Outpost is on Amazon Prime; a solid 2020 film based on a 2012 book based on a true story from 2009.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,590
    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    Scott_xP said:

    Am told the current wording of tomorrow's debate when Parliament is recalled is: "That this House has considered the situation in Afghanistan".

    Nice and forensic

    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1427630737424101383

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,590
    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING -
    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

    20 million? That's like half the country.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,809
    IanB2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nando’s is overpriced shite.

    Never been. Am I missing anything?
    Chicken
    I've never dined at Nando's.

    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.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 3,412
    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nando’s is overpriced shite.

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    edited August 2021
    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.
  • kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More like Nandon'ts, amiright?

    BBC News - Nando's shuts restaurants as it runs short of supplies

    https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1427718254567510022


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58249337

    I didn't care when KFC experienced trouble, but this is far more serious.
    Kabul Fried Chicken?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.

    But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.

    This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.
    How many women?
    None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.
    How many clean shaven?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,941
    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.

    But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.

    This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.
    How many women?
    None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.
    How many clean shaven?
    Let's just say that this isn't a great Gillette sponsorship opportunity.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,290
    YORKSHIRE POST: ⁦@pritipatel⁩ calls on Europe to help take on refugees #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1427743168888455172/photo/1
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.

    But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.

    This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.
    How many women?
    None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.
    How many clean shaven?
    Let's just say that this isn't a great Gillette sponsorship opportunity.
    I'm physically incapable of growing a respectable beard, I hope they are understanding for such disability should I plan my next holiday there.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,468
    edited August 2021
    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    pigeon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    edited August 2021
    Scott_xP said:

    YORKSHIRE POST: ⁦@pritipatel⁩ calls on Europe to help take on refugees #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1427743168888455172/photo/1

    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.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,319
    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    More like Nandon'ts, amiright?

    BBC News - Nando's shuts restaurants as it runs short of supplies

    https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1427718254567510022


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58249337

    I didn't care when KFC experienced trouble, but this is far more serious.
    Kabul Fried Chicken?
    Well it is halal (some of them anyway).
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,590
    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,941
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.

    But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.

    This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.
    How many women?
    None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.
    How many clean shaven?
    Let's just say that this isn't a great Gillette sponsorship opportunity.
    I'm physically incapable of growing a respectable beard, I hope they are understanding for such disability should I plan my next holiday there.
    Not completely convinced that tolerance of such failings is high on their (very short to non existent) list of credits.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,847
    edited August 2021
    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.

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,590
    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,889
    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BREAKING -
    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

    20 million? That's like half the country.
    Bad maths (see me)
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,056
    moonshine said:

    darkage said:

    moonshine said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nando’s is overpriced shite.

    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.
    Rey dos Frangos in Lisbon
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    I do hope we have one of those pictures of world leaders on the phone to mark the Biden-Johnson call, otherwise I shall not believe it happened.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,695
    rcs1000 said:

    Why, Mr Gove?

    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

    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.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,056

    DougSeal said:

    Poor Magna didn’t die in vain…


    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)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,654
    Cyclefree said:

    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?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,468
    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.

    But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.

    This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.
    How many women?
    None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.
    How many clean shaven?
    Again none. But that's more of a fringe issue.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,056
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Why, Mr Gove?

    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

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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?
    Silence is always an option
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,695

    IanB2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nando’s is overpriced shite.

    Never been. Am I missing anything?
    Chicken
    I've never dined at Nando's.

    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.
    Nandos is South African. A lot of Portuguese moved there when Mozambique got independence, though some went to the motherland.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.

    But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.

    This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each

    The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now

    Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope

    Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.
    How many women?
    None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.
    How many clean shaven?
    Again none. But that's more of a fringe issue.
    You should pore over the details until you tease the truth out
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,468
    kle4 said:

    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.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,809
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nando’s is overpriced shite.

    Never been. Am I missing anything?
    Chicken
    I've never dined at Nando's.

    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.
    Nandos is South African. A lot of Portuguese moved there when Mozambique got independence, though some went to the motherland.

    Every day is a school day on PB.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,941
    Alistair said:

    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.

    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.

    That's fascinating. I wonder what would be found if so many of our Covid projections were subject to that kind of analysis.
This discussion has been closed.