New Ipsos “Vaccine Passport” polling finds strong support across a wide range of activities – politi
Options
Comments
-
What a surprise - the detail of what Starmer said is completely different from the soundbite...isam said:
If you read what he actually says on the front page, it isn’t clear whether he thinks they’re a good or bad idea, or whether he’ll vote for or against them.rottenborough said:Is Starmer reading different polling to the ones quoted in the thread header?
Labour focus groups telling him something different on vaccine app?
1 -
It seems completely typical of Starmer to me; a long winded, fussy way of not really saying anythingBig_G_NorthWales said:
That is very different from the reaction of some posters on hereisam said:
If you read what he actually says on the front page, it isn’t clear whether he thinks they’re a good or bad idea, or whether he’ll vote for or against them.rottenborough said:Is Starmer reading different polling to the ones quoted in the thread header?
Labour focus groups telling him something different on vaccine app?
I doubt few if anyone, including HMG, would disagree5 -
Probably not the right type of black and asian....after all who can forget the youtube video posted on here of the white blm supporter in the us telling the black woman he was blacker than she was.Andy_JS said:
Most of the people writing the report were black or Asian.kinabalu said:
I prefer "monumental epic bullshit" -alex_ said:
Not that i know anything about the background to this report, its origins, how and why it came to its conclusions, or what actually it says, i'm interested to know how it is possible to construct a report about race relations that won't have somebody somewhere criticising it as "divisive"...Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/13773046284847923272 -
Its like he was a lawyer or something....isam said:
It seems completely typical of Starmer to me; a long winded, fussy way of not really saying anythingBig_G_NorthWales said:
That is very different from the reaction of some posters on hereisam said:
If you read what he actually says on the front page, it isn’t clear whether he thinks they’re a good or bad idea, or whether he’ll vote for or against them.rottenborough said:Is Starmer reading different polling to the ones quoted in the thread header?
Labour focus groups telling him something different on vaccine app?
I doubt few if anyone, including HMG, would disagree1 -
I think you have a somewhat outdated and prejudiced view of Russia's capabilities. According to the World Bank and the IMF, their economy is only just behind Germany in PPP terms.DavidL said:
Come on Robert. Russia is a joke of a power. Not a very funny one but a joke nonetheless. They will not be invading any real countries, not even the Baltic states. He can take advantage when there is chaos and weakness.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.0 -
Perfectly put.
In real life I’ve never heard anyone use the term BAME anyway - it does seem quite white-centric to me, surprising it was the go to PC term at all
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1377330625196216321?s=212 -
One of the Russian issues at the moment is that Ukraine is rearming, representing a possible threat to their proxies in the East. I doubt the Russians think that the occupied area of Crimea would be subject to a frontal military attack by Ukraine. The proxy republics in the East, however, have been a bit basket casey at times and it wouldn't be beyond possibility that the Ukrainians, once rearmed, could roll in successfully.Casino_Royale said:
I would have thought this is one for a Western cyber-hack/attack on Russian forces, including special forces, drones and proxies for Ukrainian forces if needs be.Yokes said:
It is not. At very least its a strong arm negotiation attempt and a test of Biden early to see the reaction. Russia has possibly assessed him as per Obama, will do fuck all. At the worst its military action, possibly territory around the Sea of Azov but just as likely to weaken Ukraine's military to a massive extent as it seeks to reform and modernise. My understanding is that Russian messages to the likes of Germany is to bring Ukraine to heel as per whatever unspecified demands Russia has. The timing, ie around Easter, would be a concern, its a well established practice to do things when western states & governments are on holiday.Floater said:
I was waiting to hear your view - not looking great is itYokes said:On the headline topic, has the UK population become a set of f**king ninnies? Enough people will get the vaccine to create a high level of protection. We do not need to exclude those who do not or cannot.
Off-topic: Based on the concept that when a country sabre rattles it often increases troops on an opposing country's borders. After a point, the scale & type of build-up gets to a stage where you have to assume that the intention is no longer to threaten force but to use it.
Watching the Russian-Ukrainian border in recent days, you are getting very close to that assumption.
Its fair to say the US is worried.
US European Command is reportedly on 'imminent crisis' which is as high a watch status as you can get before actual shooting starts.
The reported boost to Russian ground forces is reportedly 4000 (US source to media). Added to forces in place plus a late deployment of rapid reaction airborne troops (who are on full exercise at the moment) they could run a limited campaign over say securing electricity and water routes into Crimea create some kind of expanded buffer area. Looking at the various transport reports, however, its a) more fighting hardware than a, expanded motorised rifle brigade on the move in the immediate vicinity and b) it is motorised rifle, which is a self contained tank, armoured carrier and artillery unit, not say a battalion of special forces
Given that the report of rail freight stock shortages apparently came via an official news agency, its either a ruse designed to cause alarm or they are moving way more than 4000 troops into theater.
1 -
BAME has a long contested history. I have never met a person who liked the term when used about them. I have long tried to avoid it.isam said:Perfectly put.
In real life I’ve never heard anyone use the term BAME anyway - it does seem quite white-centric to me, surprising it was the go to PC term at all
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1377330625196216321?s=211 -
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.1 -
Restaurants get screwed, drivers get screwed and the consumer gets screwed...and despite the pandemic causing a massive surge in business, the deliver apps don't make money....
https://youtu.be/-KwtJX_Tcjo1 -
Mix-up because fuck-up wasn't allowed in the tweet?williamglenn said:0 -
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.0 -
Does GBNews qualify Ems Barr for blue tick status?Big_G_NorthWales said:Another GBnews signing
https://twitter.com/Emsbarr/status/1377312070656536577?s=190 -
We await Kinabalu’s reiterated justification of the term, stoutly advanced about six months ago, even when told it was about to be ditched. Like every prior termFoxy said:
BAME has a long contested history. I have never met a person who liked the term when used about them. I have long tried to avoid it.isam said:Perfectly put.
In real life I’ve never heard anyone use the term BAME anyway - it does seem quite white-centric to me, surprising it was the go to PC term at all
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1377330625196216321?s=212 -
Anyone who uses the term BAME in any serious sense is a simpleton fuckwit and a patronising racist.Leon said:
We await Kinabalu’s reiterated justification of the term, stoutly advanced about six months ago, even when told it was about to be ditched. Like every prior termFoxy said:
BAME has a long contested history. I have never met a person who liked the term when used about them. I have long tried to avoid it.isam said:Perfectly put.
In real life I’ve never heard anyone use the term BAME anyway - it does seem quite white-centric to me, surprising it was the go to PC term at all
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1377330625196216321?s=214 -
I object to an approach based on a sound scientific theory being referred to as sheer guesswork. Each of the viral vector, mRNA and protein vaccines stimulate the immune system to respond to pretty much the same viral protein. It is not guesswork to suggest that mixing would work. Of course, theory needs to be proven in practical trials. But sound theoretical reasoning is not sheer guesswork.CarlottaVance said:In January, Britain made a change to its vaccine guidelines that shocked many health experts: If the second dose of one vaccine wasn’t available, patients could be given a different one.
The new rule was based on sheer guesswork. There was no scientific data at the time demonstrating that mixing two coronavirus vaccines was safe and effective. But that may change soon.
In February, researchers at the University of Oxford began a trial in which volunteers received a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine followed by a dose of AstraZeneca’s formulation, or vice versa. This month, the researchers will start analyzing the blood of the subjects to see how well the mix-and-match approach works.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/31/world/covid-19-coronavirus/scientists-wonder-if-a-mix-and-match-approach-to-vaccines-could-be-the-way-to-go6 -
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.1 -
I assumed it was never used outside 'official' purposes for means of categorisation rather than, generally, a catch all identity that people keenly felt, though obviously it isn't something I would personally know. Probably quite handy for people who want to talk generically about race but not so good when talking about or to individuals or individual communities, since one BAME person or community is hardly interchangable with another, particularly when other factors are at play (as TSE relayed earlier eg re parental background, education).Foxy said:
BAME has a long contested history. I have never met a person who liked the term when used about them. I have long tried to avoid it.isam said:Perfectly put.
In real life I’ve never heard anyone use the term BAME anyway - it does seem quite white-centric to me, surprising it was the go to PC term at all
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1377330625196216321?s=21
Also handy I imagine for meaning people don't try to guess someone's specific ethnicity (I'm sure there's occasions people would, though I cannot think of a particular reason right now).
I feel like there's something in the human brain that likes to narrow things down to only 2 options or 2 categories so we don't get confused, even though many many things cannot be so precisely categorised.0 -
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.0 -
-
Scrap NATO. Let us unite with our English speaking allies and let Europe fend for itself0
-
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.0 -
That's a shame, it seemed like such a good idea - certainly I've purchased from a greater variety of restaurants than I otherwise would have without such apps.FrancisUrquhart said:Restaurants get screwed, drivers get screwed and the consumer gets screwed...and despite the pandemic causing a massive surge in business, the deliver apps don't make money....
https://youtu.be/-KwtJX_Tcjo
Similar to the reporting of the delaying of the Pfizer doses - ok to present as a risk, but quite a few reports implied it was a risk taken with no possible basis for thinking it would work.TimT said:
I object to an approach based on a sound scientific theory being referred to as sheer guesswork. Each of the viral vector, mRNA and protein vaccines stimulate the immune system to respond to pretty much the same viral protein. It is not guesswork to suggest that mixing would work. Of course, theory needs to be proven in practical trials. But sound theoretical reasoning is not sheer guesswork.CarlottaVance said:In January, Britain made a change to its vaccine guidelines that shocked many health experts: If the second dose of one vaccine wasn’t available, patients could be given a different one.
The new rule was based on sheer guesswork. There was no scientific data at the time demonstrating that mixing two coronavirus vaccines was safe and effective. But that may change soon.
In February, researchers at the University of Oxford began a trial in which volunteers received a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine followed by a dose of AstraZeneca’s formulation, or vice versa. This month, the researchers will start analyzing the blood of the subjects to see how well the mix-and-match approach works.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/31/world/covid-19-coronavirus/scientists-wonder-if-a-mix-and-match-approach-to-vaccines-could-be-the-way-to-go0 -
You wanted us to be a third country. This is the bed you made, not us.kamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.2 -
How very, very convenient.Floater said:
Strong whiff of bullshit. Question is, if they are actually fine - where would they be going in defiance of that export ban, President Biden?0 -
I have come to this late. But if this really does reflect what the British people want - a sort of social credit-cum-ID scheme - similar to what China has then I am very very disappointed.
Worse - I am fearful for the future. Because this really means the end of any sort of real freedom - if we can only live our lives with the permission of the state.2 -
Aside from the illiteracy, the slavery passage seems to be bigging up the transformative Afro Carribean slave period experience while elsewhere the report compares Afro Carribean black people in the UK negatively with those from Africa.kinabalu said:
Yes - but more than that.Andy_JS said:
This is what the report actually said:Scott_xP said:
“There is a new story about the Caribbean experience which speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.”
Also:
"It said education about the British Empire should focus on how “Britishness” influenced former colonies and those colonies “influenced what we know about modern Britain”."
Those are the sections causing controversy I think.
The suspicion is that the Report is a cynically manufactured weapon to support the "let's not talk about racism" lobby.
As if all the progress we've made on racism over the last few decades is down to people not talking about it.
Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.2 -
Actually, I genuinely dispute this. The EU - led by the Brussels loons and the French - is literally threatening to block contracted Pfizer exports, an act which will kill thousands of Britons. Putin may take out the occasional enemy with Polonium on foreign soil (which is no more than what America does with drones daily) but he is not, as far as I know, threatening mass death of Britons out of sheer spite.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
We should unite with Putin to corner German led Europe. We’ve been here before0 -
The innocent shall have nothing to fear.Cyclefree said:I have come to this late. But if this really does reflect what the British people want - a sort of social credit-cum-ID scheme - similar to what China has then I am very very disappointed.
Worse - I am fearful for the future. Because this really means the end of any sort of real freedom - if we can only live our lives with the permission of the state.
Not really of course
As Sir Pterry once said (though likely not the only one):
Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'3 -
Pops in to PB, sees it's that time of night, turns in for an early night.Leon said:
Actually, I genuinely dispute this. The EU - led by the Brussels loons and the French - is literally threatening to block contracted Pfizer exports, an act which will kill thousands of Britons. Putin may take out the occasional enemy with Polonium on foreign soil (which is no more than what America does with drones daily) but he is not, as far as I know, threatening mass death of Britons out of sheer spite.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
We should unite with Putin to corner German led Europe. We’ve been here before5 -
It's good for the customer - sub-cost pricing leads to a huge increase in consumer surplus.kle4 said:
That's a shame, it seemed like such a good idea - certainly I've purchased from a greater variety of restaurants than I otherwise would have without such apps.FrancisUrquhart said:Restaurants get screwed, drivers get screwed and the consumer gets screwed...and despite the pandemic causing a massive surge in business, the deliver apps don't make money....
https://youtu.be/-KwtJX_Tcjo
It is not optimal, but it's much better than being screwed by pricing above cost, like in so many other industries.0 -
Sadly too many have been like that for years now. You see it in mr Nabavi's posts he has given his privacy away to face book, mobile companies etc. Doesn't therefore see a problem why others would want to.Cyclefree said:I have come to this late. But if this really does reflect what the British people want - a sort of social credit-cum-ID scheme - similar to what China has then I am very very disappointed.
Worse - I am fearful for the future. Because this really means the end of any sort of real freedom - if we can only live our lives with the permission of the state.
I suspect some also now realise how much of their privacy they have given up to tell everyone what they had for breakfast and push it because they are jealous not all have0 -
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.1 -
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.1 -
-
Why we should care about the eu......you were the ones making a big thing about us being third countries not us. It is the eu saying the uk can't be trusted on defence matters. So why should we send our young to shed blood for you.kamski said:
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
Its germanophobia its just a logical reaction to your attitude. Well if it isn't what you wanted shouldn't of started it should you.0 -
Why don't we just say "non-white"?isam said:Perfectly put.
In real life I’ve never heard anyone use the term BAME anyway - it does seem quite white-centric to me, surprising it was the go to PC term at all
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1377330625196216321?s=21
It is plain, non-offensive statement of a fact.0 -
On the Today programme this morning, one of the people behind the report was saying that kids of West African origin are doing markedly better than kids of Afro Caribbean origin - in the same classes.Theuniondivvie said:
Aside from the illiteracy, the slavery passage seems to be bigging up the transformative Afro Carribean slave period experience while elsewhere the report compares Afro Carribean black people in the UK negatively with those from Africa.kinabalu said:
Yes - but more than that.Andy_JS said:
This is what the report actually said:Scott_xP said:
“There is a new story about the Caribbean experience which speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.”
Also:
"It said education about the British Empire should focus on how “Britishness” influenced former colonies and those colonies “influenced what we know about modern Britain”."
Those are the sections causing controversy I think.
The suspicion is that the Report is a cynically manufactured weapon to support the "let's not talk about racism" lobby.
As if all the progress we've made on racism over the last few decades is down to people not talking about it.
Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.
You can poo-poo that. I'm quite interested to know why that would be.2 -
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.Paristonda said:
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.0 -
Or better yet just call him britishFishing said:
Why don't we just say "non-white"?isam said:Perfectly put.
In real life I’ve never heard anyone use the term BAME anyway - it does seem quite white-centric to me, surprising it was the go to PC term at all
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1377330625196216321?s=21
It is plain, non-offensive statement of a fact.4 -
The eu is an agressive hostile state in our neighbourhood the way they are acting and let's remember ukraine problems were largely driven by eu meddlingParistonda said:
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.1 -
No.kamski said:
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.Paristonda said:
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
They care about being against the French too.2 -
You're the one bringing Germany into this, just so you know. The issue I've raised is with Brussels on one side saying that the UK isn't to be trusted on security and defence, yet on the other maintaining an expectation that we'll always come to Europe's aid via NATO. I don't know if that sentiment is replicated in Berlin.kamski said:
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.Paristonda said:
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.2 -
Nah - the French fare far worse.kamski said:
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.0 -
I think you mistake not wanting to shed British blood for a nation that is actively seeking to exclude the UK from military research cooperation, with being against that nation. You do not need to be against, or even have animus against, a nation or its people not to want to shed your children's blood for that people.kamski said:
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.Paristonda said:
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
Indeed, I think the starting point for any analysis of any nation looking at involvement in any war should be 'why should we risk shedding our children's blood for this?'4 -
I wonder if our forces would be allowed to use the Galileo PRS that we paid >£1 billion to help develop and were then cut out of?MaxPB said:
You're the one bringing Germany into this, just so you know. The issue I've raised is with Brussels on one side saying that the UK isn't to be trusted on security and defence, yet on the other maintaining an expectation that we'll always come to Europe's aid via NATO. I don't know if that sentiment is replicated in Berlin.kamski said:
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.Paristonda said:
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.0 -
I did enjoy this piece on the difficulties of drawing parliamentary boundaries, in part due to the wildly divergent nature of local government warding which is often used as to help build them.
I'm not sure there is much of a solution. Roughly equal seats is a good thing, but too rigid and you get problems as natural community boundaries which don't quite fit, but not rigid enough and there's no point to even trying (at local level I know they aim for 10%, but I've seen them go as high as 14 or 15). Plus naturally aligned communities may in any case cross county boundaries, but people can often pitch a fit if you try that.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2021/03/here-s-why-we-need-fix-rules-governing-constituency-boundary-changes1 -
lol. I was kinda teasing. IshTOPPING said:
Pops in to PB, sees it's that time of night, turns in for an early night.Leon said:
Actually, I genuinely dispute this. The EU - led by the Brussels loons and the French - is literally threatening to block contracted Pfizer exports, an act which will kill thousands of Britons. Putin may take out the occasional enemy with Polonium on foreign soil (which is no more than what America does with drones daily) but he is not, as far as I know, threatening mass death of Britons out of sheer spite.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
We should unite with Putin to corner German led Europe. We’ve been here before0 -
Basil Fawlty lives!Pagan2 said:
Why we should care about the eu......you were the ones making a big thing about us being third countries not us. It is the eu saying the uk can't be trusted on defence matters. So why should we send our young to shed blood for you.kamski said:
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
Its germanophobia its just a logical reaction to your attitude. Well if it isn't what you wanted shouldn't of started it should you.0 -
See what I mean?Pagan2 said:
Why we should care about the eu......you were the ones making a big thing about us being third countries not us. It is the eu saying the uk can't be trusted on defence matters. So why should we send our young to shed blood for you.kamski said:
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
Its germanophobia its just a logical reaction to your attitude. Well if it isn't what you wanted shouldn't of started it should you.
I'm not asking anyone to shed blood for me. Nor to care about the EU. On the contrary, I think it would be healthy for Britain to stop obsessing about it now Britain's left.
Besides which I'm British.2 -
How ridiculous. No it wouldn't.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
Why would Putin stop expansionism in Eastern Europe during a second Trump term? Onward and Westward, why would Putin feel the need to stop at Calais? I am not sure Trump Turnberry and Trump Aberdeenshire would be leverage enough.0 -
One I never mentioned the warTheuniondivvie said:
Basil Fawlty lives!Pagan2 said:
Why we should care about the eu......you were the ones making a big thing about us being third countries not us. It is the eu saying the uk can't be trusted on defence matters. So why should we send our young to shed blood for you.kamski said:
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
Its germanophobia its just a logical reaction to your attitude. Well if it isn't what you wanted shouldn't of started it should you.
Two I never uttered a word that was anti german.
Instead I merely pointed out if you tell us we can't be trusted with military projects then you can't expect us to come bleed for you. Its simple really. Why should my son go bleed for people that don't think we can be trusted and constantly tell us we are a third country?0 -
It gets them out of the house.TimT said:
Indeed, I think the starting point for any analysis of any nation looking at involvement in any war should be 'why should we risk shedding our children's blood for this?'kamski said:
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.Paristonda said:
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.0 -
The New York Post piece on the Russian build up was quite good I thought. It speculated that the show of hardware was to rattle the Biden administration and see what they did. If I were the Russians, I would want Nordstream built and pumping gas before doing anything military in Ukraine. That's why I can't see this coming to anything - who knows, I could well be wrong.0
-
I'm just pointing out 'the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain' illiterate bullshit is just that.MarqueeMark said:
On the Today programme this morning, one of the people behind the report was saying that kids of West African origin are doing markedly better than kids of Afro Caribbean origin - in the same classes.Theuniondivvie said:
Aside from the illiteracy, the slavery passage seems to be bigging up the transformative Afro Carribean slave period experience while elsewhere the report compares Afro Carribean black people in the UK negatively with those from Africa.kinabalu said:
Yes - but more than that.Andy_JS said:
This is what the report actually said:Scott_xP said:
“There is a new story about the Caribbean experience which speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.”
Also:
"It said education about the British Empire should focus on how “Britishness” influenced former colonies and those colonies “influenced what we know about modern Britain”."
Those are the sections causing controversy I think.
The suspicion is that the Report is a cynically manufactured weapon to support the "let's not talk about racism" lobby.
As if all the progress we've made on racism over the last few decades is down to people not talking about it.
Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.
You can poo-poo that. I'm quite interested to know why that would be.2 -
I agree.kamski said:
See what I mean?Pagan2 said:
Why we should care about the eu......you were the ones making a big thing about us being third countries not us. It is the eu saying the uk can't be trusted on defence matters. So why should we send our young to shed blood for you.kamski said:
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
Its germanophobia its just a logical reaction to your attitude. Well if it isn't what you wanted shouldn't of started it should you.
I'm not asking anyone to shed blood for me. Nor to care about the EU. On the contrary, I think it would be healthy for Britain to stop obsessing about it now Britain's left.
Besides which I'm British.0 -
https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1377203613538398212Theuniondivvie said:
Basil Fawlty lives!Pagan2 said:
Why we should care about the eu......you were the ones making a big thing about us being third countries not us. It is the eu saying the uk can't be trusted on defence matters. So why should we send our young to shed blood for you.kamski said:
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
Its germanophobia its just a logical reaction to your attitude. Well if it isn't what you wanted shouldn't of started it should you.
0 -
Is that a COVID-specific reason?kle4 said:
It gets them out of the house.TimT said:
Indeed, I think the starting point for any analysis of any nation looking at involvement in any war should be 'why should we risk shedding our children's blood for this?'kamski said:
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.Paristonda said:
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
0 -
Michael SpicerTheuniondivvie said:
I'm just pointing out 'the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain' illiterate bullshit is just that.MarqueeMark said:
On the Today programme this morning, one of the people behind the report was saying that kids of West African origin are doing markedly better than kids of Afro Caribbean origin - in the same classes.Theuniondivvie said:
Aside from the illiteracy, the slavery passage seems to be bigging up the transformative Afro Carribean slave period experience while elsewhere the report compares Afro Carribean black people in the UK negatively with those from Africa.kinabalu said:
Yes - but more than that.Andy_JS said:
This is what the report actually said:Scott_xP said:
“There is a new story about the Caribbean experience which speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.”
Also:
"It said education about the British Empire should focus on how “Britishness” influenced former colonies and those colonies “influenced what we know about modern Britain”."
Those are the sections causing controversy I think.
The suspicion is that the Report is a cynically manufactured weapon to support the "let's not talk about racism" lobby.
As if all the progress we've made on racism over the last few decades is down to people not talking about it.
Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.
You can poo-poo that. I'm quite interested to know why that would be.
https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1377203613538398212
1 -
I'd certainly like to believe that, despite ongoing issues, the UK is not institutionally racist and has done a better job with some of these issues than others. But it does seem from some of the comments on these threads, even the not automatically negative ones, that some of the report at least may at best miss the point a little.
Given the high heat vs light ratio of political discussions on race I don't know if it is worth reading the thing.0 -
It's the same with South Asians - Indians do better than white people in school and in earnings after school, which are of course strongly correlated, while Pakistanis and Bangladeshis do much worse. I think the key cause of the performance of different ethnic groups is not white racism, but educational achievement.MarqueeMark said:
On the Today programme this morning, one of the people behind the report was saying that kids of West African origin are doing markedly better than kids of Afro Caribbean origin - in the same classes.Theuniondivvie said:
Aside from the illiteracy, the slavery passage seems to be bigging up the transformative Afro Carribean slave period experience while elsewhere the report compares Afro Carribean black people in the UK negatively with those from Africa.kinabalu said:
Yes - but more than that.Andy_JS said:
This is what the report actually said:Scott_xP said:
“There is a new story about the Caribbean experience which speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.”
Also:
"It said education about the British Empire should focus on how “Britishness” influenced former colonies and those colonies “influenced what we know about modern Britain”."
Those are the sections causing controversy I think.
The suspicion is that the Report is a cynically manufactured weapon to support the "let's not talk about racism" lobby.
As if all the progress we've made on racism over the last few decades is down to people not talking about it.
Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.
You can poo-poo that. I'm quite interested to know why that would be.2 -
How come? You're a youngster and didn't you have your first recently?TheScreamingEagles said:Well I'm officially double jabbed now.
Give me freedom and liberty now!0 -
Nah, but I can see that we might undervalue the character building effect of terrifying, deadly border warfare, or a viking raid.TimT said:
Is that a COVID-specific reason?kle4 said:
It gets them out of the house.TimT said:
Indeed, I think the starting point for any analysis of any nation looking at involvement in any war should be 'why should we risk shedding our children's blood for this?'kamski said:
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.Paristonda said:
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.0 -
Are we allies or not?Pagan2 said:
One I never mentioned the warTheuniondivvie said:
Basil Fawlty lives!Pagan2 said:
Why we should care about the eu......you were the ones making a big thing about us being third countries not us. It is the eu saying the uk can't be trusted on defence matters. So why should we send our young to shed blood for you.kamski said:
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
Its germanophobia its just a logical reaction to your attitude. Well if it isn't what you wanted shouldn't of started it should you.
Two I never uttered a word that was anti german.
Instead I merely pointed out if you tell us we can't be trusted with military projects then you can't expect us to come bleed for you. Its simple really. Why should my son go bleed for people that don't think we can be trusted and constantly tell us we are a third country?
If we're allies we should be working together.
If we're allies then we should be identifying our collective threats/enemies and not tying ourselves to them.
Germany etc have made it abundantly clear they don't view Britain as an ally, and they don't view Russia as an enemy.1 -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/kle4 said:I'd certainly like to believe that, despite ongoing issues, the UK is not institutionally racist and has done a better job with some of these issues than others. But it does seem from some of the comments on these threads, even the not automatically negative ones, that some of the report at least may at best miss the point a little.
Given the high heat vs light ratio of political discussions on race I don't know if it is worth reading the thing.
gives the lie to people like roger who hold up france as a beacon of civillised tolerance. The uk always seems to come out near the top in such surveys. Doesn't mean there aren't problems but we aren't the knuckle dragging xenophobes that the left tries to portray us as5 -
On that note, the combined population of the UK, Australia and New Zealand is about to reach 100 million in the next year or so. Interesting factoid. (Or maybe not, with the current restrictions. Might take a bit longer).Leon said:Scrap NATO. Let us unite with our English speaking allies and let Europe fend for itself
0 -
After the first jab, you're supposed to wait 3 weeks for it to take effect. Is it also 3 weeks after the second jab?1
-
Sparta!!!kle4 said:
Nah, but I can see that we might undervalue the character building effect of terrifying, deadly border warfare, or a viking raid.TimT said:
Is that a COVID-specific reason?kle4 said:
It gets them out of the house.TimT said:
Indeed, I think the starting point for any analysis of any nation looking at involvement in any war should be 'why should we risk shedding our children's blood for this?'kamski said:
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.Paristonda said:
Its about the UK dealing with an agressive and expansionist hostile state in its neighbourhood, nothing to do with the EU. Ukraine isn't in the EU, but it is an ally of the UK.Pagan2 said:
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us nowkamski said:
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.Paristonda said:
The EU may be acting pissy towards us over Brexit right now but they haven't got a record of flagrantly murdering people on British soil and trolling us with laughable excuses about cathedrals. There's no question which is the more hostile power to the UK.MaxPB said:
Hmm, I'm not as sure about the first point. In isolation that makes some sense, but the EU as an organisation has become hostile towards the UK so their success may necessarily come at our expense. Not to suggest Russia would be better, however, a severely weakened EU would be better for us.rcs1000 said:
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.MaxPB said:
Is it though? What threat does Russia pose to this island nation? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested to know how Russia becoming the continental hegemon is any different to now. A diminished EU is probably to our advantage, if we're playing the zero sum game.rcs1000 said:
I think the rationale is that it's better to constrain the rise of an expansionary Russia, picking off little states in the East, than to only act when Russia has become the continental hegemon.DavidL said:
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot.Casino_Royale said:
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.DavidL said:
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.Casino_Royale said:
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I agree with @MaxPB on this actually. We have a painfully small military now and it is getting smaller. We are hugely overcommitted in terms of countries that we have promised to go to the aid of. We have made these promises with a bunch of countries who are not acting like friends, let alone allies. We have legitimate interests to protect but we need to seriously think about what they are. NATO was useful when it tied the US to the defence of Europe and us. They have gone home and have nothing left here. They are not interested. It is not obvious why we should be either.
I am no pacifist. I am open to the idea of us having a minor role in the Pacific if this helps our trade interests. My enthusiasm for protecting the likes of Germany, however, is very much diminished. Why the hell should we?
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.0 -
Since the turn of the century Australia's population has shot up by more than a third.Andy_JS said:
On that note, the combined population of the UK, Australia and New Zealand is about to reach 100 million in the next year or so. Interesting factoid.Leon said:Scrap NATO. Let us unite with our English speaking allies and let Europe fend for itself
In the same time Germany's has gone up by 3%0 -
I'd say Britain is on the whole less racist than Germany. But racism and xenophobia aren't quite the same thing. The palpable hatred of so many people on here for the Germans or the French isn't racism, it's xenophobia.Pagan2 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/kle4 said:I'd certainly like to believe that, despite ongoing issues, the UK is not institutionally racist and has done a better job with some of these issues than others. But it does seem from some of the comments on these threads, even the not automatically negative ones, that some of the report at least may at best miss the point a little.
Given the high heat vs light ratio of political discussions on race I don't know if it is worth reading the thing.
gives the lie to people like roger who hold up france as a beacon of civillised tolerance. The uk always seems to come out near the top in such surveys. Doesn't mean there aren't problems but we aren't the knuckle dragging xenophobes that the left tries to portray us as1 -
PS After about 6-8 days from first jab, immunity starts to build. It reaches a maximum from the first shot after about 3 weeks. Maximum protection is reached about 14 days after the second jab.TimT said:
2 weeks.Andy_JS said:After the first jab, you're supposed to wait 3 weeks for it to take effect. Is it also 3 weeks after the second jab?
0 -
I really don't see a lot of people on here hating the Germans. There are certainly a lot on here aghast at recent German behaviour - press and politicians - in relation to COVID. I see a lot of upset about the process of Brexit, in which the UK surely shares blame. I see envy at Germany's success and dominant position in Europe and, perhaps because of this, schadenfreude when Germany is shown to be less than perfect in something, like today's football. But, apart from the wilder rantings of one or two posters, I really don't see hatred towards Germany.kamski said:
I'd say Britain is on the whole less racist than Germany. But racism and xenophobia aren't quite the same thing. The palpable hatred of so many people on here for the Germans or the French isn't racism, it's xenophobia.Pagan2 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/kle4 said:I'd certainly like to believe that, despite ongoing issues, the UK is not institutionally racist and has done a better job with some of these issues than others. But it does seem from some of the comments on these threads, even the not automatically negative ones, that some of the report at least may at best miss the point a little.
Given the high heat vs light ratio of political discussions on race I don't know if it is worth reading the thing.
gives the lie to people like roger who hold up france as a beacon of civillised tolerance. The uk always seems to come out near the top in such surveys. Doesn't mean there aren't problems but we aren't the knuckle dragging xenophobes that the left tries to portray us as
Could you point me to specific examples?2 -
I’m struggling to believe my eyes regarding the KKK image Clive Lewis has tweeted tonight. Labour are in such a bad place right now and on the wrong side of so many arguments. I feel sorry for Keir in a way, I believe he’s broadly an OK guy flanked by some absolute lunatics.2
-
Catching up.
Those who make a nice living telling us how awful we all are certainly don't like being gently challenged, do they?5 -
Here it is:Brom said:I’m struggling to believe my eyes regarding the KKK image Clive Lewis has tweeted tonight. Labour are in such a bad place right now and on the wrong side of so many arguments. I feel sorry for Keir in a way, I believe he’s broadly an OK guy flanked by some absolute lunatics.
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/13773444156818145280 -
Not rally sure what the problem is there.kinabalu said:
Yes - quite cute.Stuartinromford said:
Interesting way of phrasing the criticism as well... Don't do this, because it's not British.rottenborough said:
Beginning to unwrap the flag off the government.
Systems are different, and using the name of a country to describe how a country works seems perfectly reasonable.0 -
Wild swimming is in rivers and lakes, often with a wetsuit, and there are some trainspotter types who want to swim in lots of places and keep a sad-list.algarkirk said:
Wild swimming is done in the middle of winter in the middle of nowhere, for example, the well named Loch Frisa on Mull, and it clears the mind. And turns you blue. You soon notice the difference between it and a fortnight in Magaluf. One is supposed to be spiritually more uplifting but I can't recall which.Andy_JS said:
Never heard of wild swimming before. What's the difference between wild swimming and — just swimming?Gallowgate said:
People have strong opinions on "wild swimming"?Anabobazina said:Lots of people love wild swimming and enjoy articles and books about wild swimming. I own several. That the Guardian shouldn't publish features on wild swimming because a few nesh PBers don't like wild swimming is the epitome of an 'Only On PB' moment.
You need Doxy's Pool, in the Peaks.0 -
There's also a big Chinese naval build up just outside the Philippines exclusive economic zone so maybe it's a coordinated action. I can't recall whether pb tories consider the Filipino/as to be honorary white people like they do Japan and Korea so it's hard to say what the response will be.Gallowgate said:I can't be the only one who wants @Dura_Ace 's comical take on the Russia/Ukraine situation?
If the UK doesn't want to take 10,000 KIAs to defend Riga from the 2nd Mechanised Rapist Division of the Russian army then the UK needs to withdraw from NATO. The eastern European defence commitments HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU. If you don't want to do it you have to leave NATO.4 -
I would say that they are going to have to extend fairly full lockdown until well into May or June. Or pay the price beyond what is already locked in.Black_Rook said:
Looking at the history of the UK lockdown, however, are four weeks(-ish - the schools will be back in three) going to be enough? I know that they start with the advantage of being some distance into their vaccination project, but even in that regard France is only where the UK was - in terms of the proportion of the population to have been given a vaccine - at the end of January, and their upwards trajectory is much shallower.Leon said:
I'm not sure. He said terraces are opening in Mid May - i.e. what we are doing mid April. In mid May we will be allowed to sit inside.TheScreamingEagles said:France looking opening up the cultural/food sectors in Mid May.
Just like Le Royaume-Uni.
Sounds like they are about a month behind, which makes sense with this extra month of lockdown
Assuming that the unlocking sequence in England happens on schedule, it'll have been three full months from peak mortality to beer gardens. Assuming that the French epidemic follows the pattern of our January disaster, and peak mortality therefore comes about a fortnight into national lockdown, then they're proposing to make that transition in only one month. It doesn't seem realistic.
The trigger points for them will be the same as us - 15m people done for very old and very vulnerable. Plus 3 weeks. And 32m for 50+ and just vulnerable, plus 3 weeks. Assuming maximum efficiency in giving jabs by medical risk.
France is currently at 8m people (people, not jabs) with at least one jab.
And running at a million more people every six days. So that is 15 million by the middle of May at that rate, or end of April if they boost their average by 50%. Plus 3 weeks to develop resistance.
Like for like imo they are more like 3 months behind.0 -
The good news is that both Ed Davey and Keir Starmer seem to be taking a stand against it, which is a brave move if public opinion is heavily in the other direction.Cyclefree said:I have come to this late. But if this really does reflect what the British people want - a sort of social credit-cum-ID scheme - similar to what China has then I am very very disappointed.
Worse - I am fearful for the future. Because this really means the end of any sort of real freedom - if we can only live our lives with the permission of the state.2 -
Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
Dr Tony Sewell CBE
Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock MBE
Aftab Chughtai MBE
Keith Fraser
Naureen Khalid
Dr Dambisa Moyo
Mercy Muroki
Martyn Oliver
Dr Samir Shah CBE
Kunle Olulode MBE
Blondel Cluff CBE
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974507/20210331_-_CRED_Report_-_FINAL_-_Web_Accessible.pdf5 -
Well they have English as an official lingo in the Philippines. Innit!Dura_Ace said:
There's also a big Chinese naval build up just outside the Philippines exclusive economic zone so maybe it's a coordinated action. I can't recall whether pb tories consider the Filipino/as to be honorary white people like they do Japan and Korea so it's hard to say what the response will be.Gallowgate said:I can't be the only one who wants @Dura_Ace 's comical take on the Russia/Ukraine situation?
If the UK doesn't want to take 10,000 KIAs to defend Riga from the 2nd Mechanised Rapist Division of the Russian army then the UK needs to withdraw from NATO. The eastern European defence commitments HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU. If you don't want to do it you have to leave NATO.0 -
Wow! Hypocrisy alert level just reached 100,000! The people of Mansfield say hello.Anabobazina said:
Wrong. It’s the usual PB sneering by the usual sneerers. They should try it, and get out more.kle4 said:
This is not a criticism as we all have our quirks, but having followed the entire discussion no one seems to be triggered more by ensuring people use the 'correct' terminology than you, indeed you've gone out of your way to pick a fight on it when some are merely expressing bafflement on a term they had not come across.Anabobazina said:I do wonder how many PBers get through life, their being triggered by a perfectly reasonable and benign term such as wild swimming.
Absolutely bizarre.
Far from an 'Only on PB' thing it appears to be an Anabobazina thing - you are the one exercised, and indeed insistent, that people use the terms you want them to use...in relation to camping and swimming.
I don't think it viable to be the most emotional ("talking shite" etc) and insistent on a trivial matter, then insist others are the ones reacting bizarrely.1 -
"Pfizer accuses Brussels of holding back Covid vaccine effort" {£}
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trial-pfizer-covid-vaccine-teenagers-results-5rrs9mmgx2 -
He's planting his flag on another losing bandwagon........Scott_xP said:2 -
As are many of the people who disagree with it.Andy_JS said:
Most of the people writing the report were black or Asian.kinabalu said:
I prefer "monumental epic bullshit" -alex_ said:
Not that i know anything about the background to this report, its origins, how and why it came to its conclusions, or what actually it says, i'm interested to know how it is possible to construct a report about race relations that won't have somebody somewhere criticising it as "divisive"...Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/13773046284847923270
This discussion has been closed.