Howdy, Stranger!

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

LAB is going to be a lot harder to demonise next time without Corbyn – politicalbetting.com

12357

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,088

    My village McColls hasn't got any Tunnocks Teacakes. Truly the supply/logistics crisis has wrought the End Of Civilisation.

    Never mind the confections what about the pre-shaved parmesan cheese supply?
    Given that poster's history, I did wonder whether 'parmesan cheese' was a weird term for a part of the female body ...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492

    Alistair said:

    Seem like the GOP is settling "we should have left Afghanistan whilst staying there permanently."

    https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/1431283777809100813?s=19

    Fits with their view that Trump won the election even though the vote counting says he didn't.

    Impossible things before breakfast brigade.
    What I find frightening is how people like @MrEd - who are far from idiots - are still waiting with baited breath for the results of the Maricopa audit.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    .

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    DougSeal said:

    isam said:

    We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.

    Starmer has, he really should lean into that.

    A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
    One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
    Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
    Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
    Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
    Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.

    SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
    With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
    A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.

    Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
    Who was it who said politics is show biz for ugly people?
    Up to a point, rarely do ugly party leaders win elections, though you can certainly have ugly backbenchers and Cabinet members.

    A bit like you can have ugly character actors or drummers but rarely do you get an ugly leading man or woman or lead singer
    Interesting point. I was going to suggest that Gordon Brown was a bit of a minger, but then remembered he didn't win. Harold Wilson was pretty ugly, and going further back you have Alec Douglas Home (not sure whether he won?).

    Maybe you have something here. Perhaps the PM that wins is normally the better looking:

    Puppy eyes Johnson v Corbyn (Corbyn def a minger)
    Cameron v Miliband (Miliband looks a bit wierd)
    Cameron v Brown (Brown is a minger)
    Blair v Major (Major not really a minger, but Blair better looking than Major)
    Major v Kinnock (Kinnoch a bit of a minger)
    Thatcher v Kinnoch (see above)
    Thatcher v Foot (Foot def minger)
    PB.com: the home of sophisticated political debate.
    And incredibly off beam.

    In no way is Gordon Brown a "minger" ffs! Dark, brooding, brooding, dark, he's all of that. He's the whole package. Could have been in 50 Shades quite easily.

    And Boris "Boris" Johnson is NOT objectively speaking a physically attractive man, regardless of blond locks and high muscle/fat ratio. He laughs them into bed (or voting Conservative) with his comedy.
    Yes. My other half (a woman of great discernment, naturally) finds Boris physically repulsive, and whenever he appears on TV makes strange, slightly disconcerting, noises of disgust. Not a fan of his politics either, mind you.
    My wife, a shire Tory of a similar age to Johnson, finds him particularly unattractive. She found both Brown and Hague alluring. She had no particular view on Blair, Corbyn, Howard, Milliband or Cameron's appearance. She did think May a shape shifting lizard.
    Are you trying to wind people up.. Brown alluring?? You gotta be joking.. seriously it has to be a joke...
    He was involved with a Romania princess at one point.
    Power.. ?? Certainly not being alluring.. at least, as a guy I can't see it. I thought he was ghastly as a person.
    They were both young, so doubt it was the power thing.

    According to wikipedia she told an interviewer:

    "I never stopped loving him, but one day it didn't seem right any more, it was politics, politics, politics, and I needed nurturing,"
  • My village McColls hasn't got any Tunnocks Teacakes. Truly the supply/logistics crisis has wrought the End Of Civilisation.

    Never mind the confections what about the pre-shaved parmesan cheese supply?
    Given that poster's history, I did wonder whether 'parmesan cheese' was a weird term for a part of the female body ...
    And a Tunnocks Teacake looks like boobies fnarr fnarr.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,839
    edited August 2021
    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    My village McColls hasn't got any Tunnocks Teacakes. Truly the supply/logistics crisis has wrought the End Of Civilisation.

    Never mind the confections what about the pre-shaved parmesan cheese supply?
    I havn’t had any Lucozade Revive for months. I’m gasping.

    Seriously, is the Government fortunate Covid came straight after Brexit, so can blame everything on Covid. Or is it the government are unfortunate Covid came straight after Brexit, because it meant they have been unable to iron out the creases? Ie get people into training where there is going to be shortage for those skills?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    Seem like the GOP is settling "we should have left Afghanistan whilst staying there permanently."

    https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/1431283777809100813?s=19

    Fits with their view that Trump won the election even though the vote counting says he didn't.

    Impossible things before breakfast brigade.
    What I find frightening is how people like @MrEd - who are far from idiots - are still waiting with baited breath for the results of the Maricopa audit.

    And ignore the Michigan GOP Senate election investigation results that were released.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,075
    rcs1000 said:

    ping said:

    Reading the numerous replies to the tweet… my god. Seriously large numbers of people seem to live in a parallel morality;

    https://www.twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431297919399993347

    It does just show how out of touch with public opinion some of us are

    I would not have expected the animals lives to be considered the same as human lives at 40% and even 3% consider they are worth more
    I know plenty of crazies who think animals lives are worth more than humans, as they're not "fucking up the planet". (n=6 or 7)

    Indeed, I know far more of them, than people who boast of having an abortion. (n=0)
    They are crazy.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    My village McColls hasn't got any Tunnocks Teacakes. Truly the supply/logistics crisis has wrought the End Of Civilisation.

    Never mind the confections what about the pre-shaved parmesan cheese supply?
    Given that poster's history, I did wonder whether 'parmesan cheese' was a weird term for a part of the female body ...
    And a Tunnocks Teacake looks like boobies fnarr fnarr.
    So you are saying your local shop has run out of boobies?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    Seem like the GOP is settling "we should have left Afghanistan whilst staying there permanently."

    https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/1431283777809100813?s=19

    Fits with their view that Trump won the election even though the vote counting says he didn't.

    Impossible things before breakfast brigade.
    What I find frightening is how people like @MrEd - who are far from idiots - are still waiting with baited breath for the results of the Maricopa audit.

    Last i saw they were looking to analyse the ballot papers for bamboo fibre as that would prove there had been a load dumped from china.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,168

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
    I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.

    What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?

    He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
    Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
    A long long time ago there was a BBC play called I think 'The March'. iirc thousands, maybe tens of thousands had marched from Africa to UK to escape some catastrophe. I have a vague memory that one of the marchers says at one point - we could be like your cats, just treat us like your cats and that would be enough.
    Was that a v controversial play? I think I have heard of it
    I remember the trailer for it, where one of the marchers said "we are poor, because you are rich".

    Which put me right off it. Because it's such an extraordinary simplification.
    Easier to chant than a whole chapter by Adam Smith, Keynes or Piketty though.
    Ah, but Ricardo would be OK. He's pretty readable.
    Wikipedia:

    "The March is a 1990 British drama film directed by David Wheatley that was originally aired by BBC One for "One World Week". The plot concerns a charismatic Muslim leader from the Sudan who leads 250,000 Africans on a 3,000-mile march towards Europe with the slogan "We are poor because you are rich."
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    ...
    gealbhan said:

    My village McColls hasn't got any Tunnocks Teacakes. Truly the supply/logistics crisis has wrought the End Of Civilisation.

    Never mind the confections what about the pre-shaved parmesan cheese supply?
    I havn’t had any Lucozade Revive for months. I’m gasping.

    Seriously, is the Government fortunate Covid came straight after Brexit, so can blame everything on Covid. Or is it the government are unfortunate Covid came straight after Brexit, because it meant they have been unable to iron out the creases? Ie get people into training where there is going to be shortage for those skills?
    It gives a free option for everyone to impose their narrative
  • My village McColls hasn't got any Tunnocks Teacakes. Truly the supply/logistics crisis has wrought the End Of Civilisation.

    Never mind the confections what about the pre-shaved parmesan cheese supply?
    Given that poster's history, I did wonder whether 'parmesan cheese' was a weird term for a part of the female body ...
    And a Tunnocks Teacake looks like boobies fnarr fnarr.
    So you are saying your local shop has run out of boobies?
    Happily the village is buzzing about a new deli which has been announced as opening soon.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,724

    My village McColls hasn't got any Tunnocks Teacakes. Truly the supply/logistics crisis has wrought the End Of Civilisation.

    Never mind the confections what about the pre-shaved parmesan cheese supply?
    You'll find that next to the Good Brie.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Check out what football for all are saying about Mendy

    I will not link in case it might cause problems for Mike

    Man City might have some explaining to do
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    edited August 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
    I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.

    What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?

    He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
    Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
    A long long time ago there was a BBC play called I think 'The March'. iirc thousands, maybe tens of thousands had marched from Africa to UK to escape some catastrophe. I have a vague memory that one of the marchers says at one point - we could be like your cats, just treat us like your cats and that would be enough.
    Was that a v controversial play? I think I have heard of it
    I remember the trailer for it, where one of the marchers said "we are poor, because you are rich".

    Which put me right off it. Because it's such an extraordinary simplification.
    But, if you view wealth and poverty as relative terms, rather than absolutes, it is in fact such a true statement that it is a truism, not an oversimplification.

    Either way, it is idiotic
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,168
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    40% of people have either never swatted a fly, or would just as easily kill a human!
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,850
    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    DougSeal said:

    isam said:

    We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.

    Starmer has, he really should lean into that.

    A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
    One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
    Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
    Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
    Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
    Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.

    SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
    With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
    A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.

    Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
    Who was it who said politics is show biz for ugly people?
    Up to a point, rarely do ugly party leaders win elections, though you can certainly have ugly backbenchers and Cabinet members.

    A bit like you can have ugly character actors or drummers but rarely do you get an ugly leading man or woman or lead singer
    Interesting point. I was going to suggest that Gordon Brown was a bit of a minger, but then remembered he didn't win. Harold Wilson was pretty ugly, and going further back you have Alec Douglas Home (not sure whether he won?).

    Maybe you have something here. Perhaps the PM that wins is normally the better looking:

    Puppy eyes Johnson v Corbyn (Corbyn def a minger)
    Cameron v Miliband (Miliband looks a bit wierd)
    Cameron v Brown (Brown is a minger)
    Blair v Major (Major not really a minger, but Blair better looking than Major)
    Major v Kinnock (Kinnoch a bit of a minger)
    Thatcher v Kinnoch (see above)
    Thatcher v Foot (Foot def minger)
    PB.com: the home of sophisticated political debate.
    And incredibly off beam.

    In no way is Gordon Brown a "minger" ffs! Dark, brooding, brooding, dark, he's all of that. He's the whole package. Could have been in 50 Shades quite easily.

    And Boris "Boris" Johnson is NOT objectively speaking a physically attractive man, regardless of blond locks and high muscle/fat ratio. He laughs them into bed (or voting Conservative) with his comedy.
    Yes. My other half (a woman of great discernment, naturally) finds Boris physically repulsive, and whenever he appears on TV makes strange, slightly disconcerting, noises of disgust. Not a fan of his politics either, mind you.
    My wife, a shire Tory of a similar age to Johnson, finds him particularly unattractive. She found both Brown and Hague alluring. She had no particular view on Blair, Corbyn, Howard, Milliband or Cameron's appearance. She did think May a shape shifting lizard.
    Are you trying to wind people up.. Brown alluring?? You gotta be joking.. seriously it has to be a joke...
    Brown's physical appeal is a generally acknowledged fact. I think you’re allowing political bias to creep in.
    Lol i think you are allowing your political bias to get in the way.....
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    edited August 2021

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,785
    Floater said:

    Check out what football for all are saying about Mendy

    I will not link in case it might cause problems for Mike

    Man City might have some explaining to do

    It’s all in here:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/27/benjamin-mendy-footballer-remanded-in-custody-on-charges

    The secret barrister explains why bail is very important and tends to think mags tend to deny it illegally (or at least try to until it’s explained why they are wrong to do so). Well, this is the flip side of the equation.

    Interesting that a PL footballer can appear in court without it being noticed. I wonder if it was hushed up and if so, who knew what and when?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,468
    Floater said:

    Check out what football for all are saying about Mendy

    I will not link in case it might cause problems for Mike

    Man City might have some explaining to do

    Isn't what they are saying merely reporting what has been said in open court? In which case it ought to be fine. Won't link either.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 470

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    I didn’t know as much as 40% of the population were either vegetarians or cannibals.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,008
    I couldn't find any Dairy Crunch in East Ham this evening.

    Mrs Stodge is in tears.

    It is the end of days....
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473
    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
    I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.

    What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?

    He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
    Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
    It is truly grim.

    However leaving Afghans in their country where broadly speaking they've made their own mess of things - as a big picture that's not so bad. You dig in to the detail of course and it's awful.

    What magic do we have that they don't?

    I think in part it's Islam. I'm of the view that all faiths are daft, and I think that Islam is the worst of the bunch. Other than wealth through oil the Islamic nations haven't achieved a thing really. I want to be wrong on this. I'd like it if everyone could believe in whatever they wanted and it didn't matter. As such I was cheered by the Emirati space programme.

    Back to Afghanistan. I've met quite a few Afghanis over the years, more, more recently. I've always been impressed by their reasonableness and civility. They're capable of building a wonderful nation. They need to just get on with it and maybe the Taliban give them a route to that.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,724

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    So posh male Tory pensioners hate animals.


    My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
    I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.

    What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?

    He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
    Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
    A long long time ago there was a BBC play called I think 'The March'. iirc thousands, maybe tens of thousands had marched from Africa to UK to escape some catastrophe. I have a vague memory that one of the marchers says at one point - we could be like your cats, just treat us like your cats and that would be enough.
    Was that a v controversial play? I think I have heard of it
    I remember the trailer for it, where one of the marchers said "we are poor, because you are rich".

    Which put me right off it. Because it's such an extraordinary simplification.
    Easier to chant than a whole chapter by Adam Smith, Keynes or Piketty though.
    Ah, but Ricardo would be OK. He's pretty readable.
    Wikipedia:

    "The March is a 1990 British drama film directed by David Wheatley that was originally aired by BBC One for "One World Week". The plot concerns a charismatic Muslim leader from the Sudan who leads 250,000 Africans on a 3,000-mile march towards Europe with the slogan "We are poor because you are rich."
    This is actually happening for real though, isn’t it. Driven by that same idea behind the slogan?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,468
    edited August 2021
    So United have signed Ronaldo, Varane and Sancho.
    Chelsea Lukaku.
    Arsenal still biggest spenders!
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    tlg86 said:

    Floater said:

    Check out what football for all are saying about Mendy

    I will not link in case it might cause problems for Mike

    Man City might have some explaining to do

    It’s all in here:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/27/benjamin-mendy-footballer-remanded-in-custody-on-charges

    The secret barrister explains why bail is very important and tends to think mags tend to deny it illegally (or at least try to until it’s explained why they are wrong to do so). Well, this is the flip side of the equation.

    Interesting that a PL footballer can appear in court without it being noticed. I wonder if it was hushed up and if so, who knew what and when?
    Given the prosecution's statement of facts about the case, I can't see a more senior judge overruling the denial of bail, unless the prosecution's facts are discredited.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,511
    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,888
    I agree with Mike
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
  • Vietnam reports 17,428 new coronavirus cases, by far the biggest one-day increase on record, and 386 new deaths
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,511
    Ratters said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    I didn’t know as much as 40% of the population were either vegetarians or cannibals.
    It's the 8% of 18-24 year olds who think animals are worth more than humans that interets me. It's posturing, but I am surprised it is not higher.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,785
    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,844

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    I guess when you're talking Gaia, the environment and biodiversity as a whole that's not an insane survey result.

    When you come down from that into the specifics of a dog vs an Afghan in an evacuation, I suspect the result looks quite different.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    I was not saying that others could not criticize, but I would not. He has made an effort for what he believes in. Good for him. If you can't make an effort for what you believe in, aside from virtue signaling, well ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289
    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    I was not saying that others could not criticize, but I would not. He has made an effort for what he believes in. Good for him. If you can't make an effort for what you believe in, aside from virtue signaling, well ...
    Indeed, why can't we try and rescue both
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,969

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    So posh male Tory pensioners hate animals.


    My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
    Women are such sentimental twats
  • dixiedean said:

    So United have signed Ronaldo, Varane and Sancho.
    Chelsea Lukaku.
    Arsenal still biggest spenders!

    A pity they're in the relegation zone* :lol:

    * albeit early days!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    So posh male Tory pensioners hate animals.


    My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
    Yeah, but what would animals say if someone spoke to them about Rawls veil of ignorance and asked them?

    Oh yes, they wouldn't, because they're incapable of those higher order brain functions. If you're going to include animals, then why not plants, or algae, or a barrel of oil?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289
    Labour MPs play the class war card against Rishi this evening

    'From 6th Oct, 15,350 working age families in my constituency will plunge further into poverty due to the £20 cut to Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit.

    Meanwhile the Tory Chancellor will add a new swimming pool, 4 showers and a tennis court to his 1.5m Grade II-listed manor'

    https://twitter.com/ClaudiaWebbe/status/1431300536125509639?s=20
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    h
    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    I was not saying that others could not criticize, but I would not. He has made an effort for what he believes in. Good for him. If you can't make an effort for what you believe in, aside from virtue signaling, well ...
    What is special about believing in something? What if what you believe in is, say, white supremacy?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    edited August 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    Pouring gasoline on a fire that will already be raging? Covid causing shortages will ensure inflation spikes and hangs around, stimulate it so spikes higher and lasts longer? Boom, bust, job losses in key electoral college votes.

    What happened to reaction to a situation, rather than implementing a plan you married years ago? Do we trust them to have a back up plan as numbers and events tick against them?

    Bidens White House is to government what the Lib Dem’s were to government.

    We don’t like the Iraq War, our policy: no Iraq War.

    We don’t like tuition fees, our policy: no tuition fees.

    There is no realpolitik anywhere about this Biden Administration. As the weeks and months pass, this point I am making is being proved and will go on being proved.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289
    edited August 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    PBers:

    If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.

    Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

    Actually it only took one President, Biden.

    It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.

    Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.

    "Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1431207278376591361?s=20
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,969
    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    When Farthing's plane arrived, they should have shot his animals, told him sorry and then told him to fuck off, and saved hundreds of human lives instead

    It's that basic. FFS.

    We saved cats so that more Afghani women can be raped, tortured and executed

    That is the moral decline of the West, right there

    THEY ARE JUST CATS
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,959
    edited August 2021
    I can't believe they are still doing the nonsense of sanitizing the cricket ball.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    In my youth I spent a lot of time on one of the Outer Hebrides. The locals never minded unwanted pregnancies in their dogs, because they just popped the puppies in the lobster pots as bait. I've always admired the holistic, one-with-nature vibe there.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    IshmaelZ said:

    h

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    I was not saying that others could not criticize, but I would not. He has made an effort for what he believes in. Good for him. If you can't make an effort for what you believe in, aside from virtue signaling, well ...
    What is special about believing in something? What if what you believe in is, say, white supremacy?
    Pretty much nothing happens without a belief of some sort. Anyways, clearly not a fruitful line of discussion between myself and those who've opined so heavily against Farthing.
  • gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    Pouring gasoline on a fire that will already be raging? Covid will ensure inflation spikes and hangs around, stimulate it so spikes higher and lasts longer? Boom, bust, job losses in key electoral college votes.

    What happened to reaction to a situation, rather than implementing a plan you married years ago? Do we trust them to have a back up plan?

    Bidens White House is to government what the Lib Dem’s were to government.

    We don’t like the Iraq War, our policy: no Iraq War.

    We don’t like tuition fees, our policy: no tuition fees.

    There is no realpolitik anywhere about this Biden Administration. As the weeks and months pass, this point I am making is being proved and will go on being proved.
    His chief advisor claims inflation has been solved in western economics....so they can borrow like crazy and just start to worry about paying it back in 10-15 years.

    Very concerning....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    Pouring gasoline on a fire that will already be raging? Covid will ensure inflation spikes and hangs around, stimulate it so spikes higher and lasts longer? Boom, bust, job losses in key electoral college votes.

    What happened to reaction to a situation, rather than implementing a plan you married years ago? Do we trust them to have a back up plan?

    Bidens White House is to government what the Lib Dem’s were to government.

    We don’t like the Iraq War, our policy: no Iraq War.

    We don’t like tuition fees, our policy: no tuition fees.

    There is no realpolitik anywhere about this Biden Administration. As the weeks and months pass, this point I am making is being proved and will go on being proved.
    So, I actually broadly agree with you that this reignite the inflationary cycle in the US and have positioned myself accordingly.

    HOWEVER.

    Is that really such a bad thing? The US's massive problem is its enormous imbalances with the rest of the world that are denominated in US Dollars. Three years of 7% inflation and 4% real economic growth effectively knocks down half of the US's external liabilities, and cuts the real cost of most peoples' mortgages in half.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:

    Labour MPs play the class war card against Rishi this evening

    'From 6th Oct, 15,350 working age families in my constituency will plunge further into poverty due to the £20 cut to Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit.

    Meanwhile the Tory Chancellor will add a new swimming pool, 4 showers and a tennis court to his 1.5m Grade II-listed manor'

    https://twitter.com/ClaudiaWebbe/status/1431300536125509639?s=20

    Where do you get a Grade II-listed manor for 1.5m these days?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PBers:

    If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.

    Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

    Actually it only took one President, Biden.

    It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.

    Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.

    "Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1431207278376591361?s=20
    I think you're struggling with the whole "twenty year" thing.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,850
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    You have no heart... unless the dog has serious behavioural problems when I might understand.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,934
    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    Surely less gold plated elevators?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289
    edited August 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PBers:

    If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.

    Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

    Actually it only took one President, Biden.

    It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.

    Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.

    "Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1431207278376591361?s=20
    I think you're struggling with the whole "twenty year" thing.
    For 20 years Afghanistan was a largely free country with an elected government without the Taliban in control.

    As a result of his withdrawal within 20 days Biden let the Taliban retake the whole country.

    It is Biden who will be responsible in the annals of history for this and for the jihadi militants who will return to the country and set up bases too
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,724
    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    So posh male Tory pensioners hate animals.


    My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
    Yeah, but what would animals say if someone spoke to them about Rawls veil of ignorance and asked them?

    Oh yes, they wouldn't, because they're incapable of those higher order brain functions. If you're going to include animals, then why not plants, or algae, or a barrel of oil?
    Moving seamlessly from Rawls to Bentham:

    The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?


    The possession of rights by the inanimate is a different kettle of fish. But that is the basis of my opposition to interplanetary exploration.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour MPs play the class war card against Rishi this evening

    'From 6th Oct, 15,350 working age families in my constituency will plunge further into poverty due to the £20 cut to Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit.

    Meanwhile the Tory Chancellor will add a new swimming pool, 4 showers and a tennis court to his 1.5m Grade II-listed manor'

    https://twitter.com/ClaudiaWebbe/status/1431300536125509639?s=20

    Where do you get a Grade II-listed manor for 1.5m these days?
    Oop North.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    You have no heart... unless the dog has serious behavioural problems when I might understand.
    The dog is a rescue that was thrice returned to the shelter. They told my wife and daughter that if she's returned again, then she'll be for the chop.

    We've wasted a lot of money on trainers.

    But it turns out some dogs are just really antisocial.

    She loves my wife mind.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,969
    edited August 2021
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    In my youth I spent a lot of time on one of the Outer Hebrides. The locals never minded unwanted pregnancies in their dogs, because they just popped the puppies in the lobster pots as bait. I've always admired the holistic, one-with-nature vibe there.
    I am absolutely unsentimental about animals. I loathe animal cruelty - I hate all cruelty. But I just don't get attached to animals like so many - indeed most

    I've also worked out why. As a boy I was deeply, deeply upset by the death of two little critters. One was a sea urchin I found in the Med off Collioure which I brought back to our hotel and put in the sink. I was probaby about 8. Unsurprisingly it died quite soon after. Sea urchins don't do well in French hotel sinks

    The other was some small baby mammal I found in our back garden. I was maybe 9. Abandoned, I tried to rescue it, kept it in the airing cupboard, fed it every day, fussed over it hourly, but then that bastard died as well, I was quite devastated

    Add in a couple of distressing pet deaths - our kitten, Smut! - when I was about 11 and around then I decided to toughen up. With regard to animals. If they were going to keep dying on me I was going to stop caring about them, so I would no longer suffer emotional pain if they keeled over

    Ever since I have been almost heartless about animals. I just don't get that fussed. As I said I disapprove of animal cruelty, of course, and I praise people like NPXMP in working for animal welfare, but on a personal level, meh. Dogs bore me, cats are idiots, horses are fun for riding while drunk, but so is a motorbike
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited August 2021

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    You have no heart... unless the dog has serious behavioural problems when I might understand.
    I'm guessing the dog in question is a regular and prolific generator of dogshit. If that isn't a serious behavioural problem, what is?
  • IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    CBS saying death toll "at least 170".

    BBC and SKY saying only 95.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    MEAT IS MURDER :lol:
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PBers:

    If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.

    Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

    Actually it only took one President, Biden.

    It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.

    Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.

    "Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1431207278376591361?s=20
    I think you're struggling with the whole "twenty year" thing.
    For 20 years Afghanistan was a largely free country with an elected government without the Taliban in control.

    As a result of his withdrawal within 20 days Biden let the Taliban retake the whole country.

    It is Biden who will be responsible in the annals of history for this and for the jihadi militants who will return to the country and set up bases too
    Oh, you're a parody account. I'd often wondered.

    KABUL was a pretty free city. Kandahar probably pretty good as well. Once you got out into the outer wilds (just as when the Soviets were in charge), the Western influence dropped to close to zero.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,168
    Wonder where that B52 pootling down the Gulf of Oman is going......
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,785
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    In my youth I spent a lot of time on one of the Outer Hebrides. The locals never minded unwanted pregnancies in their dogs, because they just popped the puppies in the lobster pots as bait. I've always admired the holistic, one-with-nature vibe there.
    I am absolutely unsentimental about animals. I loathe animal cruelty - I hate all cruelty. But I just don't get attached to animals like so many - indeed most

    I've also worked out why. As a boy I was deeply, deeply upset by the death of two little critters. One was a sea urchin I found in the Med off Collioure which I brought back to our hotel and put in the sink. I was probaby about 8. Unsurprisingly it did quite soon after. Sea urchins don't do well in French hotel sinks

    The other was some small baby mammal I found in our back garden. I was maybe 9. Abandoned, I tried to rescue it, kept it in the airing cupboard, fed it ever day, fussed over it hourly, but then that bastard died as well, I was quite devastated

    Add in a couple of distressing pet deaths - our kitten, smut! - when I was about 11 and around then I decided to toughen up. With regard to animals. If they were going to keep dying on my I was going to stop caring about them, so I would no longer suffer emotional pain if they keeled over

    Ever since I have been almost heartless about animals. I just don't get that fussed. As I said I diapprove of animal cruelty, of course, and I praise people like NPXMP in working for animal welfare, but on a personal level, meh. Dogs bore me, cats are idiots, horses are fun for riding while drunk, but so is a motorbike
    Cats most certainly are not idiots. They are very smart. That’s why they have servants whilst dogs have masters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289
    edited August 2021
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour MPs play the class war card against Rishi this evening

    'From 6th Oct, 15,350 working age families in my constituency will plunge further into poverty due to the £20 cut to Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit.

    Meanwhile the Tory Chancellor will add a new swimming pool, 4 showers and a tennis court to his 1.5m Grade II-listed manor'

    https://twitter.com/ClaudiaWebbe/status/1431300536125509639?s=20

    Where do you get a Grade II-listed manor for 1.5m these days?
    North Yorkshire.

    The Sunaks also have a 5 bedroom mews house in Kensington, an apartment in Santa Monica, California, and a flat in Old Brompton Road in west London.

    As Chancellor he also obviously has use of No 11 Downing Street and Dorneywood in Bucks
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1360843/how-many-houses-does-Rishi-Sunak-have-chancellor-net-worth-EVG
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,969
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PBers:

    If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.

    Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

    Actually it only took one President, Biden.

    It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.

    Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.

    "Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1431207278376591361?s=20
    I think you're struggling with the whole "twenty year" thing.
    For 20 years Afghanistan was a largely free country with an elected government without the Taliban in control.

    As a result of his withdrawal within 20 days Biden let the Taliban retake the whole country.

    It is Biden who will be responsible in the annals of history for this and for the jihadi militants who will return to the country and set up bases too
    Oh, you're a parody account. I'd often wondered.

    KABUL was a pretty free city. Kandahar probably pretty good as well. Once you got out into the outer wilds (just as when the Soviets were in charge), the Western influence dropped to close to zero.
    Really not sure that's true. Lots of rural places got schools for girls, there was a nationwide improvement
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,850
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    You have no heart... unless the dog has serious behavioural problems when I might understand.
    The dog is a rescue that was thrice returned to the shelter. They told my wife and daughter that if she's returned again, then she'll be for the chop.

    We've wasted a lot of money on trainers.

    But it turns out some dogs are just really antisocial.

    She loves my wife mind.
    Compris...
  • U.S. intelligence community agrees coronavirus was not developed as a biological weapon, but remains divided on whether it emerged through animals or a lab incident https://t.co/vzMXkSRt5f
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    MEAT IS MURDER :lol:
    In the old days - before Spotify - the first thing I would look for in any date's flat would be a copy of The Smith's Meat is Murder. If I found it (and all too often I did), it was like a flashing red sign saying "THIS GIRL IS NOT FOR YOU".
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,168
    I just don’t understand people that both think Covid-19 is a hoax and that also want to drink bleach and lick horse deworming paste to prevent catching a disease they don’t even think exists.

    https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1431188810801483776?s=20
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,651
    edited August 2021

    Wonder where that B52 pootling down the Gulf of Oman is going......

    "When you gotta go, you gotta go!"
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,427

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    So posh male Tory pensioners hate animals.


    My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
    You pick on that I wonder why when I would have pointed out the difference between abc1 people and the rest of us. Still I guess labour being the party of ABC1's these days you wouldn't want to do that
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    edited August 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    Pouring gasoline on a fire that will already be raging? Covid will ensure inflation spikes and hangs around, stimulate it so spikes higher and lasts longer? Boom, bust, job losses in key electoral college votes.

    What happened to reaction to a situation, rather than implementing a plan you married years ago? Do we trust them to have a back up plan?

    Bidens White House is to government what the Lib Dem’s were to government.

    We don’t like the Iraq War, our policy: no Iraq War.

    We don’t like tuition fees, our policy: no tuition fees.

    There is no realpolitik anywhere about this Biden Administration. As the weeks and months pass, this point I am making is being proved and will go on being proved.
    So, I actually broadly agree with you that this reignite the inflationary cycle in the US and have positioned myself accordingly.

    HOWEVER.

    Is that really such a bad thing? The US's massive problem is its enormous imbalances with the rest of the world that are denominated in US Dollars. Three years of 7% inflation and 4% real economic growth effectively knocks down half of the US's external liabilities, and cuts the real cost of most peoples' mortgages in half.
    Any guarantee on the growth? It might get lumpy. Late sixties/early seventies lumpy? Why lumpy? Covid. By that I mean supply problems and skill shortages. Growth revised down, inflation revised up. You going to explain that is really not a bad thing?

    The other interesting thing is not just the eye watering debt numbers, but how the cost of your debt is linked to inflation, isn’t it? In how the increasing amounts you hand over to pay for your debt comes from your liquid capital, the stuff you’d rather be spending elsewhere. Que cars taking you to the bank manager asking for a loan, turn back as you have already run out of money.

    The lack of realpolitik about this White House meant they didn’t think twice about a stimulus package they agreed on before they even heard the word Covid. To my mind, that’s already form and how you should expect them to continue screwing up.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PBers:

    If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.

    Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

    Actually it only took one President, Biden.

    It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.

    Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.

    "Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1431207278376591361?s=20
    I think you're struggling with the whole "twenty year" thing.
    For 20 years Afghanistan was a largely free country with an elected government without the Taliban in control.

    As a result of his withdrawal within 20 days Biden let the Taliban retake the whole country.

    It is Biden who will be responsible in the annals of history for this and for the jihadi militants who will return to the country and set up bases too
    Oh, you're a parody account. I'd often wondered.

    KABUL was a pretty free city. Kandahar probably pretty good as well. Once you got out into the outer wilds (just as when the Soviets were in charge), the Western influence dropped to close to zero.
    Really not sure that's true. Lots of rural places got schools for girls, there was a nationwide improvement
    Fair.

    Afghanistan - all of it - will be worse for women now we've left. But it's also true that the reach of the central government diminished the further you got from Kabul. And there were plenty of places where the education of women was conveniently forgotten.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,969
    tlg86 said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    In my youth I spent a lot of time on one of the Outer Hebrides. The locals never minded unwanted pregnancies in their dogs, because they just popped the puppies in the lobster pots as bait. I've always admired the holistic, one-with-nature vibe there.
    I am absolutely unsentimental about animals. I loathe animal cruelty - I hate all cruelty. But I just don't get attached to animals like so many - indeed most

    I've also worked out why. As a boy I was deeply, deeply upset by the death of two little critters. One was a sea urchin I found in the Med off Collioure which I brought back to our hotel and put in the sink. I was probaby about 8. Unsurprisingly it did quite soon after. Sea urchins don't do well in French hotel sinks

    The other was some small baby mammal I found in our back garden. I was maybe 9. Abandoned, I tried to rescue it, kept it in the airing cupboard, fed it ever day, fussed over it hourly, but then that bastard died as well, I was quite devastated

    Add in a couple of distressing pet deaths - our kitten, smut! - when I was about 11 and around then I decided to toughen up. With regard to animals. If they were going to keep dying on my I was going to stop caring about them, so I would no longer suffer emotional pain if they keeled over

    Ever since I have been almost heartless about animals. I just don't get that fussed. As I said I diapprove of animal cruelty, of course, and I praise people like NPXMP in working for animal welfare, but on a personal level, meh. Dogs bore me, cats are idiots, horses are fun for riding while drunk, but so is a motorbike
    Cats most certainly are not idiots. They are very smart. That’s why they have servants whilst dogs have masters.
    OK, selfish wankers. Cats are selfish wankers
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,492
    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    Pouring gasoline on a fire that will already be raging? Covid will ensure inflation spikes and hangs around, stimulate it so spikes higher and lasts longer? Boom, bust, job losses in key electoral college votes.

    What happened to reaction to a situation, rather than implementing a plan you married years ago? Do we trust them to have a back up plan?

    Bidens White House is to government what the Lib Dem’s were to government.

    We don’t like the Iraq War, our policy: no Iraq War.

    We don’t like tuition fees, our policy: no tuition fees.

    There is no realpolitik anywhere about this Biden Administration. As the weeks and months pass, this point I am making is being proved and will go on being proved.
    So, I actually broadly agree with you that this reignite the inflationary cycle in the US and have positioned myself accordingly.

    HOWEVER.

    Is that really such a bad thing? The US's massive problem is its enormous imbalances with the rest of the world that are denominated in US Dollars. Three years of 7% inflation and 4% real economic growth effectively knocks down half of the US's external liabilities, and cuts the real cost of most peoples' mortgages in half.
    Any guarantee on the growth? It might get lumpy. Late sixties/early seventies lumpy? Why lumpy? Covid. By that I mean supply problems and skill shortages. Growth revised down, inflation revised up. You going to explain that is really not a bad thing?

    The other interesting thing is not just the eye watering debt numbers, but how the cost of your debt is linked to inflation, isn’t it?

    The lack of realpolitik about this White House meant they didn’t think twice about a stimulus package they agreed on before they even heard the word Covid. To my mind, that’s already form and how you should expect them to continue screwing up.
    Almost all US debt is fixed interest. So the cost of debt is not linked to inflation, no.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,839
    edited August 2021

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    CBS saying death toll "at least 170".

    BBC and SKY saying only 95.
    BBC saying 170

    Interviewing relatives coming out of the morgue saying their relatives have bullet wounds and no signs of injury from explosion.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,022
    Leon said:

    tlg86 said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    In my youth I spent a lot of time on one of the Outer Hebrides. The locals never minded unwanted pregnancies in their dogs, because they just popped the puppies in the lobster pots as bait. I've always admired the holistic, one-with-nature vibe there.
    I am absolutely unsentimental about animals. I loathe animal cruelty - I hate all cruelty. But I just don't get attached to animals like so many - indeed most

    I've also worked out why. As a boy I was deeply, deeply upset by the death of two little critters. One was a sea urchin I found in the Med off Collioure which I brought back to our hotel and put in the sink. I was probaby about 8. Unsurprisingly it did quite soon after. Sea urchins don't do well in French hotel sinks

    The other was some small baby mammal I found in our back garden. I was maybe 9. Abandoned, I tried to rescue it, kept it in the airing cupboard, fed it ever day, fussed over it hourly, but then that bastard died as well, I was quite devastated

    Add in a couple of distressing pet deaths - our kitten, smut! - when I was about 11 and around then I decided to toughen up. With regard to animals. If they were going to keep dying on my I was going to stop caring about them, so I would no longer suffer emotional pain if they keeled over

    Ever since I have been almost heartless about animals. I just don't get that fussed. As I said I diapprove of animal cruelty, of course, and I praise people like NPXMP in working for animal welfare, but on a personal level, meh. Dogs bore me, cats are idiots, horses are fun for riding while drunk, but so is a motorbike
    Cats most certainly are not idiots. They are very smart. That’s why they have servants whilst dogs have masters.
    OK, selfish wankers. Cats are selfish wankers
    Cats are top 😼
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited August 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    You have no heart... unless the dog has serious behavioural problems when I might understand.
    The dog is a rescue that was thrice returned to the shelter. They told my wife and daughter that if she's returned again, then she'll be for the chop.

    We've wasted a lot of money on trainers.

    But it turns out some dogs are just really antisocial.

    She loves my wife mind.
    The "rescue" thing is a fucking scam. The key point here is: animals don't mind being euthanased, because they don't know it's happening. Dogs aren't being "rescued" from people who are cruel to them, they have been handed back in by their owners because a. they are shitty and dangerous animals or b. the owners just can't cope with them. Type b animals are innocent if you wanna think of it in those terms, but so what? There's still no moral downside in polishing them off.

    And the "rescue" organisations are lovely, big-hearted charities. Only thing is, they charge a "rehoming fee" which looks awfully like a purchase price.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,178
    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=20
    MEAT IS MURDER :lol:
    In the old days - before Spotify - the first thing I would look for in any date's flat would be a copy of The Smith's Meat is Murder. If I found it (and all too often I did), it was like a flashing red sign saying "THIS GIRL IS NOT FOR YOU".
    What does Spotify have to do with it? Perhaps I am too old ...
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    edited August 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    It also has spending on actual infastructure in it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,969
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PBers:

    If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.

    Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

    Actually it only took one President, Biden.

    It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.

    Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.

    "Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1431207278376591361?s=20
    I think you're struggling with the whole "twenty year" thing.
    For 20 years Afghanistan was a largely free country with an elected government without the Taliban in control.

    As a result of his withdrawal within 20 days Biden let the Taliban retake the whole country.

    It is Biden who will be responsible in the annals of history for this and for the jihadi militants who will return to the country and set up bases too
    Oh, you're a parody account. I'd often wondered.

    Kabul was a pretty free city. Kandahar probably pretty good as well. Once you got out into the outer wilds (just as when the Soviets were in charge), the Western influence dropped to close to zero.
    Really not sure that's true. Lots of rural places got schools for girls, there was a nationwide improvement
    Fair.

    Afghanistan - all of it - will be worse for women now we've left. But it's also true that the reach of the central government diminished the further you got from Kabul. And there were plenty of places where the education of women was conveniently forgotten.
    There is some small crumb of comfort in that the Taliban are fighting the even more radical jihadis - like ISIS-K and Al Qaeda. Maybe the Talibs really do want to try a more civilised form of conservative Islam, something more like Iran. Not great, but not the dystopia of before. Not quite so hellish for women, tho still pretty bleak

    On the other hand the fact they can't control ISIS-K implies they are headed for a civil war, which will be hideous for everyone. A tragic place
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,934

    U.S. intelligence community agrees coronavirus was not developed as a biological weapon, but remains divided on whether it emerged through animals or a lab incident https://t.co/vzMXkSRt5f

    What are we asking the US intelligence community for when this is the home of Leon Report? Pfff, next someone will quote some pesky scientist or something stupid.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,934
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    It also has spending on actual infastructure in it.
    Some new kennels and catteries?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Leon said:

    tlg86 said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    In my youth I spent a lot of time on one of the Outer Hebrides. The locals never minded unwanted pregnancies in their dogs, because they just popped the puppies in the lobster pots as bait. I've always admired the holistic, one-with-nature vibe there.
    I am absolutely unsentimental about animals. I loathe animal cruelty - I hate all cruelty. But I just don't get attached to animals like so many - indeed most

    I've also worked out why. As a boy I was deeply, deeply upset by the death of two little critters. One was a sea urchin I found in the Med off Collioure which I brought back to our hotel and put in the sink. I was probaby about 8. Unsurprisingly it did quite soon after. Sea urchins don't do well in French hotel sinks

    The other was some small baby mammal I found in our back garden. I was maybe 9. Abandoned, I tried to rescue it, kept it in the airing cupboard, fed it ever day, fussed over it hourly, but then that bastard died as well, I was quite devastated

    Add in a couple of distressing pet deaths - our kitten, smut! - when I was about 11 and around then I decided to toughen up. With regard to animals. If they were going to keep dying on my I was going to stop caring about them, so I would no longer suffer emotional pain if they keeled over

    Ever since I have been almost heartless about animals. I just don't get that fussed. As I said I diapprove of animal cruelty, of course, and I praise people like NPXMP in working for animal welfare, but on a personal level, meh. Dogs bore me, cats are idiots, horses are fun for riding while drunk, but so is a motorbike
    Cats most certainly are not idiots. They are very smart. That’s why they have servants whilst dogs have masters.
    OK, selfish wankers. Cats are selfish wankers
    Cats are top 😼
    Yup. toxoplasmosis for the kids, and an end to those nasty little songbirds.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,178

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    It also has spending on actual infastructure in it.
    Some new kennels and catteries?
    Wrong country. You are thinking of Johnson's UK.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    Pouring gasoline on a fire that will already be raging? Covid will ensure inflation spikes and hangs around, stimulate it so spikes higher and lasts longer? Boom, bust, job losses in key electoral college votes.

    What happened to reaction to a situation, rather than implementing a plan you married years ago? Do we trust them to have a back up plan?

    Bidens White House is to government what the Lib Dem’s were to government.

    We don’t like the Iraq War, our policy: no Iraq War.

    We don’t like tuition fees, our policy: no tuition fees.

    There is no realpolitik anywhere about this Biden Administration. As the weeks and months pass, this point I am making is being proved and will go on being proved.
    So, I actually broadly agree with you that this reignite the inflationary cycle in the US and have positioned myself accordingly.

    HOWEVER.

    Is that really such a bad thing? The US's massive problem is its enormous imbalances with the rest of the world that are denominated in US Dollars. Three years of 7% inflation and 4% real economic growth effectively knocks down half of the US's external liabilities, and cuts the real cost of most peoples' mortgages in half.
    Any guarantee on the growth? It might get lumpy. Late sixties/early seventies lumpy? Why lumpy? Covid. By that I mean supply problems and skill shortages. Growth revised down, inflation revised up. You going to explain that is really not a bad thing?

    The other interesting thing is not just the eye watering debt numbers, but how the cost of your debt is linked to inflation, isn’t it?

    The lack of realpolitik about this White House meant they didn’t think twice about a stimulus package they agreed on before they even heard the word Covid. To my mind, that’s already form and how you should expect them to continue screwing up.
    Almost all US debt is fixed interest. So the cost of debt is not linked to inflation, no.
    What about UK?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473
    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    gealbhan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.

    Can it get much worse for Biden?
    Yes. If you think his Foreign Policy is a disaster, wait till his Economic policy dwarfs this disaster.

    I actually think Trump will be better second time around, you won’t see him behaving in a medieval way like the first time he was in power. The GOP really are just a a group of country boys who live by a code of honour. All they want really is to live in an inclusive country. It may well be next Trump regime is more reasonable. Let’s just be patient with the second Trump administration, you may well see it has changed.

    Isn't Biden's infrastructure bill basically the same as Trump's infrastructure bill, only without the tax cuts for the rich?
    Pouring gasoline on a fire that will already be raging? Covid will ensure inflation spikes and hangs around, stimulate it so spikes higher and lasts longer? Boom, bust, job losses in key electoral college votes.

    What happened to reaction to a situation, rather than implementing a plan you married years ago? Do we trust them to have a back up plan?

    Bidens White House is to government what the Lib Dem’s were to government.

    We don’t like the Iraq War, our policy: no Iraq War.

    We don’t like tuition fees, our policy: no tuition fees.

    There is no realpolitik anywhere about this Biden Administration. As the weeks and months pass, this point I am making is being proved and will go on being proved.
    So, I actually broadly agree with you that this reignite the inflationary cycle in the US and have positioned myself accordingly.

    HOWEVER.

    Is that really such a bad thing? The US's massive problem is its enormous imbalances with the rest of the world that are denominated in US Dollars. Three years of 7% inflation and 4% real economic growth effectively knocks down half of the US's external liabilities, and cuts the real cost of most peoples' mortgages in half.
    Any guarantee on the growth? It might get lumpy. Late sixties/early seventies lumpy? Why lumpy? Covid. By that I mean supply problems and skill shortages. Growth revised down, inflation revised up. You going to explain that is really not a bad thing?

    The other interesting thing is not just the eye watering debt numbers, but how the cost of your debt is linked to inflation, isn’t it?

    The lack of realpolitik about this White House meant they didn’t think twice about a stimulus package they agreed on before they even heard the word Covid. To my mind, that’s already form and how you should expect them to continue screwing up.
    Almost all US debt is fixed interest. So the cost of debt is not linked to inflation, no.
    It needs to be rolled over though. It'll be a lagging factor, but inflation will kick in. Tax revenues should lead any such change, and therefore its nothing to worry about assuming governments see any inflationary rise in tax as what it is (slim hope!).
  • BREAKING: Florida reports 27,584 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,178
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    tlg86 said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    gealbhan said:

    Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation.
    .....
    On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.


    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431298596930994186?s=20

    Woof.
    Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.

    "The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.

    The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.

    The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."

    BBC
    No dogs were prioritised over people.

    Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.

    Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
    If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)

    There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did.
    What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people?
    Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot?
    Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
    This looks relevant;

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19

    You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
    All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
    This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
    To me the questions are:
    1. Would the Farthing flight have happened if the pets weren't going to be taken out?
    2. Did the Farthing flight impact negatively the number of other flights for humans that would have otherwise happened had there been no Farthing flight?

    If the answer to both questions is no, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

    To those who argue that Farthing should have prioritized humans, I'd say, well if humans are such a priority for you, why didn't you organize additional flights for them in the same way Farthing did for the animals? I am not going to criticize Farthing for focusing his efforts where his priorities lay.
    I don't think that really tracks. Why cannot people criticise someone elses' priorities?

    And the suggestion one cannot criticise him for including attention on animals, however laudable one finds that, unless that same person has taken direct action to try to save people I think is utterly absurd.

    By that level of standard - unless you have personally done x you cannot criticise those doing other than that - people should almost never criticise anyone for anything, including for instance politicians for any political failing.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my cat and saving a stranger, I’d struggle to bring myself to save the human.
    If you asked me to choose between saving my wife's dog, and saving £5, I'd struggle to save the dog.
    In my youth I spent a lot of time on one of the Outer Hebrides. The locals never minded unwanted pregnancies in their dogs, because they just popped the puppies in the lobster pots as bait. I've always admired the holistic, one-with-nature vibe there.
    I am absolutely unsentimental about animals. I loathe animal cruelty - I hate all cruelty. But I just don't get attached to animals like so many - indeed most

    I've also worked out why. As a boy I was deeply, deeply upset by the death of two little critters. One was a sea urchin I found in the Med off Collioure which I brought back to our hotel and put in the sink. I was probaby about 8. Unsurprisingly it did quite soon after. Sea urchins don't do well in French hotel sinks

    The other was some small baby mammal I found in our back garden. I was maybe 9. Abandoned, I tried to rescue it, kept it in the airing cupboard, fed it ever day, fussed over it hourly, but then that bastard died as well, I was quite devastated

    Add in a couple of distressing pet deaths - our kitten, smut! - when I was about 11 and around then I decided to toughen up. With regard to animals. If they were going to keep dying on my I was going to stop caring about them, so I would no longer suffer emotional pain if they keeled over

    Ever since I have been almost heartless about animals. I just don't get that fussed. As I said I diapprove of animal cruelty, of course, and I praise people like NPXMP in working for animal welfare, but on a personal level, meh. Dogs bore me, cats are idiots, horses are fun for riding while drunk, but so is a motorbike
    Cats most certainly are not idiots. They are very smart. That’s why they have servants whilst dogs have masters.
    OK, selfish wankers. Cats are selfish wankers
    Cats are top 😼
    Yup. toxoplasmosis for the kids, and an end to those nasty little songbirds.
    Indeed. More road accidents and stabbings in the bars when the kids grow up.
This discussion has been closed.