Is Starmer reading different polling to the ones quoted in the thread header?
Labour focus groups telling him something different on vaccine app?
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.
What a surprise - the detail of what Starmer said is completely different from the soundbite...
Is Starmer reading different polling to the ones quoted in the thread header?
Labour focus groups telling him something different on vaccine app?
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.
That is very different from the reaction of some posters on here
I doubt few if anyone, including HMG, would disagree
It seems completely typical of Starmer to me; a long winded, fussy way of not really saying anything
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"...
Most of the people writing the report were black or Asian.
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.
Is Starmer reading different polling to the ones quoted in the thread header?
Labour focus groups telling him something different on vaccine app?
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.
That is very different from the reaction of some posters on here
I doubt few if anyone, including HMG, would disagree
It seems completely typical of Starmer to me; a long winded, fussy way of not really saying anything
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
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.
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.
I was waiting to hear your view - not looking great is it
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.
US European Command is reportedly on 'imminent crisis' which is as high a watch status as you can get before actual shooting starts.
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.
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.
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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....
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
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 term
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.
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 term
Anyone who uses the term BAME in any serious sense is a simpleton fuckwit and a patronising racist.
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.
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
You wanted us to be a third country. This is the bed you made, not us.
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.
“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.
Yes - but more than that.
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.
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. Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
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.
We should unite with Putin to corner German led Europe. We’ve been here before
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.
The innocent shall have nothing to fear.
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'
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
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.
We should unite with Putin to corner German led Europe. We’ve been here before
Pops in to PB, sees it's that time of night, turns in for an early night.
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....
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.
It's good for the customer - sub-cost pricing leads to a huge increase in consumer surplus.
It is not optimal, but it's much better than being screwed by pricing above cost, like in so many other industries.
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.
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.
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 have
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
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.
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.
“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.
Yes - but more than that.
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.
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. Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.
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.
You can poo-poo that. I'm quite interested to know why that would be.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
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 meddling
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.
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.
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?'
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.
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.
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?
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
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.
We should unite with Putin to corner German led Europe. We’ve been here before
Pops in to PB, sees it's that time of night, turns in for an early night.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
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.
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
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.
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.
See what I mean?
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
How ridiculous. No it wouldn't.
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
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.
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.
Basil Fawlty lives!
One I never mentioned the war 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?
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.
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?'
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.
“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.
Yes - but more than that.
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.
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. Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.
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.
You can poo-poo that. I'm quite interested to know why that would be.
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
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.
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.
See what I mean?
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
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.
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.
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?'
“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.
Yes - but more than that.
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.
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. Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.
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.
You can poo-poo that. I'm quite interested to know why that would be.
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.
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.
“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.
Yes - but more than that.
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.
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. Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.
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.
You can poo-poo that. I'm quite interested to know why that would be.
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.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.
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?'
It gets them out of the house.
Is that a COVID-specific reason?
Nah, but I can see that we might undervalue the character building effect of terrifying, deadly border warfare, or a viking raid.
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
Should what? Remain in NATO? I don't know.
I'm only pointing out there's a lot of Germanophobia on here.
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.
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.
Basil Fawlty lives!
One I never mentioned the war 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?
Are we allies or not?
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.
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
Scrap NATO. Let us unite with our English speaking allies and let Europe fend for itself
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).
Am I the only person here who's a bit disturbed at the idea that Brexit now means the UK is effectively not in NATO?
Possibly. NATO really should have been wound up in 1989.
Jesus.
David actually but you know, easy to confuse.... Especially if I can't get a haircut.
I'll put this down to your account being hacked by a cyberbot.
Hopefully, the real David will reassert control by the morning and elbow out this Corbynite imitator.
I may have had a few glasses of wine after my court case finished today but this is no cyberbot. 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?
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.
It's not Germany we're protecting, but ourselves.
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.
We want a prosperous, peaceful neighbor.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
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.
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.
Brexit has clearly addled Max's brain. He doesn't care so long as it's bad for the Germans.
Is there a reason why we should as the eu are quite fond of pointing out they are a third country to us now
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.
You're right, but the only thing these people care about is being against the Germans.
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?'
It gets them out of the house.
Is that a COVID-specific reason?
Nah, but I can see that we might undervalue the character building effect of terrifying, deadly border warfare, or a viking raid.
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
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.
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?
2 weeks.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People have strong opinions on "wild swimming"?
Never heard of wild swimming before. What's the difference between wild swimming and — just swimming?
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.
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.
I can't be the only one who wants @Dura_Ace 's comical take on the Russia/Ukraine situation?
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.
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.
France looking opening up the cultural/food sectors in Mid May.
Just like Le Royaume-Uni.
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.
Sounds like they are about a month behind, which makes sense with this extra month of lockdown
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I can't be the only one who wants @Dura_Ace 's comical take on the Russia/Ukraine situation?
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.
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.
Well they have English as an official lingo in the Philippines. Innit!
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.
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.
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.
Wrong. It’s the usual PB sneering by the usual sneerers. They should try it, and get out more.
Wow! Hypocrisy alert level just reached 100,000! The people of Mansfield say hello.
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"...
Comments
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
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.
It is unclear that a Europe dominated by Russia would be either of those things.
https://youtu.be/-KwtJX_Tcjo
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.
Strong whiff of bullshit. Question is, if they are actually fine - where would they be going in defiance of that export ban, President Biden?
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.
Totally fucking incoherent, or at it.
We should unite with Putin to corner German led Europe. We’ve been here before
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'
It is not optimal, but it's much better than being screwed by pricing above cost, like in so many other industries.
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 have
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.
It is plain, non-offensive statement of a fact.
You can poo-poo that. I'm quite interested to know why that would be.
They care about being against the French too.
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?'
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-changes
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.
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.
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?
https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1377203613538398212
Given the high heat vs light ratio of political discussions on race I don't know if it is worth reading the thing.
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.
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
In the same time Germany's has gone up by 3%
Could you point me to specific examples?
Those who make a nice living telling us how awful we all are certainly don't like being gently challenged, do they?
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/1377344415681814528
Systems are different, and using the name of a country to describe how a country works seems perfectly reasonable.
You need Doxy's Pool, in the Peaks.
My mass vaccination centre in Mansfield is geared up for 2000 a day.
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.
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.
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.pdf
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trial-pfizer-covid-vaccine-teenagers-results-5rrs9mmgx