On topic: I did not realise that all 500 names of Parrainnages were placed in the public domain. Does this happen with proposers in he UK in Parliamentary Elections? Were I listening to a Brit saying that, it would be snow in Paris.
Off topic: The France24 International Correspondent one Dave Keating describing the Russian occupied areas of Ukraine as "technically Ukranian".
This may be Dave not being up to speed. Yesterday he was describing the suspension of Nordstream 2 as "cancellation".
And I see that President Macron is still in bit of a fluff over Aukus. Australia downgraded to a 'case by case' partner rather than 'strategic'.
On the names issue, unless things have changed in recent years, when the list of validly nominated candidates is published, for both General and Local elections, the names of the 10 nominating persons are there for all to see.
Just sanctioning rich Russians because they’re rich does seem a little like WW2 Japanese-American internment. Surely the point is to sanction those who are suspected of funding, helping, having influence over or being influenced by Putin and his cronies. Plus those with any financial interest in occupied territories.
We already have a list of 35 from post Skripal. That seems a pretty good starting point. If it means nationalising Chelsea FC then so be it.
I think there would be merit in applying a freeze widely, particualrly on assets with strange chains of owbership, then letting individuals prove that their assets are clean.
With a full disclosure and proof of beneficial ownership of frozen assets they say relate to them.
Mr. Pioneers, I didn't pay much attention to the detail yesterday, but the mood music does seem to largely agree with you that, frankly, the UK should be doing more. Much more.
But assuming Russian = bad/friend of Putin, and then alleging any concept of nuance or treating people as individuals rather than Evil Russians, as some do, is not something I find credible or helpful.
Partisan and cheap, most certainly.
Sure - a lot of the rhetoric being flung around has been totally overblown, as these non-actions now demonstrates. I said on here a few weeks ago that we weren't going to defend Ukraine militarily and weren't even going to sanction / boycott Russia. And here we are. Yet we have heard endless Boris and pro-Boris guff on the subject, all just hot air.
If we are serious about wanting to sanction Putin and go after the oligarchs then there are a lot of Russian assets in London alone. We know that a lot of it is at best murky and now we are stating the source of the murk is an enemy.
So there are things we can do as we would do for any other dodgy money investigation. We've said we will do what it takes. And we're doing nothing. Which is why the media and opposition parties keep pointing to the elephant in the room. Tory patrons and donors make a lot of money off Russia, the party itself takes donations from former Russian players. Hardly unreasonable to point to the clear links in front of our eyes and ask "are these links".
Just sanctioning rich Russians because they’re rich does seem a little like WW2 Japanese-American internment. Surely the point is to sanction those who are suspected of funding, helping, having influence over or being influenced by Putin and his cronies. Plus those with any financial interest in occupied territories.
We already have a list of 35 from post Skripal. That seems a pretty good starting point. If it means nationalising Chelsea FC then so be it.
It's a very good point that we're hardly starting from scratch with regard to sanctions, so there's less excuse for not reacting quickly.
Is was. Until this government decided to break the law in a very specific and limited way. And lying to the Queen to illegally prorogue parliament. And lying to parliament about both repeatedly breaking the law and the lie to deny breaking the law.
So you support further law breaking. Good to know.
I do? Specifics please? I am proposing the use of our existing laws to freeze suspect assets whilst we investigate their validity. Something entirely legal, with the powers covering this updated by this very government.
Nobody said that all the oligarchs are friends of Putin. Its just that if we're serious about turning the screws on Putin then that means all of the screws. An awful lot of Russian money tied up in London property - have we even considered generally freezing Russian assets?
If Vovka wasn't at least neutral toward them they'd be dead.
And they certainly were friends of Putin at one point. Chernukhin was Putin's Deputy Finance minister.
In what way is this significantly more than the U.K. is doing?
Cancelling NordStream2 is Germany shouldering the biggest hit in these first round of sanctions, but otherwise they are much of a muchness.
There’s a lot of non-specific complaining without setting out what the differences are. On the blocked banks the U.K. and EU share 2 out of the 3 for example.
Keep trying Lady Haw Haw
Bet you’re pleased Mammy knows best!
You and Malcolm are like a pair of Emporers riding around and arguing about who is dressed the finest whilst neither of you is wearing more than a transparent fig leaf.
Thinking about the arguments over sanctions this morning, I think it is classic displacement activity. Putin has been preparing Russia for this for 8 years. He's been expecting sanctions. He's ready for them. No level of sanctions is going to make him question his decisions and decide to change course. It's an example of where we are years behind him in this conflict, given that Europe collectively has done very little over the last eight years to become less reliant on Russian fossil fuels, or to prepare militarily to defend itself.
The real questions for Europe* are these: 1. Can Europe* stop funding Russian military expansionism by weaning itself off Russian fossil fuels? 2. Can Europe* fund and organise its defence to provide a military block to the next stage of Russian expansionism, in the absence of US leadership on the assumption that a Trumpist will be the next US President?
* By "Europe" here I mean a minimally viable group of European states. This might be the European members of NATO, or it might be a smaller subset determined to draw a line that they will defend.
Just sanctioning rich Russians because they’re rich does seem a little like WW2 Japanese-American internment. Surely the point is to sanction those who are suspected of funding, helping, having influence over or being influenced by Putin and his cronies. Plus those with any financial interest in occupied territories.
We already have a list of 35 from post Skripal. That seems a pretty good starting point. If it means nationalising Chelsea FC then so be it.
I want to see a Billy the Fish type punishment. Sell all of the Chelsea Players to 3rd Division no-hopers Peddleworth Albion. Then a few issues later there can be a surprise merger between Peddleworth and Chelsea where the points of both are combined together so that Chelsea Albion win the league after all.
"Scotland’s relatively cautious approach to coronavirus policy had an effect on public behaviour last year, including encouraging the greater use of masks, but did not stop death rates climbing above those of England during the Delta and Omicron variant waves, Financial Times analysis of official data shows.
Scotland continued to require the use of face coverings in public places last summer and introduced vaccine passports in the autumn, yet registered higher per capita deaths for much of the period compared with England, where such policies were not imposed.
The higher Scottish death rates through the autumn and in January will fuel fierce debate over the merits of the different approaches taken across the UK during the pandemic." (£)
So they focus on the solitary one or two days rather than the whole picture , ie Scotland had 7% share of deaths yet has a higher % of population around 9% I believe, makes you wonder who makes up this fake news and their purpose behind it. Do we have a fierce debate why death rates were so much higher in England or did they miss that analysis of official data, 140K versus 10K in Scotland.
We should not be treating British passport holders as if they are foreigners!
Everybody knows the correct procedure is to make them stateless first.
Abramovich holds Russian, Portuguese and Israeli citizenship.
As an Israeli he can pretty much come and go as he likes in the UK. Six months at a time. In theory he's not supposed to conduct work in the UK but he owns so many global companies that this is just a paper restriction.
He never stopped in London for more than a few days at a time so the 6 month rule has made bugger all difference to him.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader. As you say passports for sale and if not then have a shell company or two.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader.
I'm not sure they are paid and I don't like to accuse regulars of trolling (which is the base of all base accusations and a sign that you've run out of steam) but I totally agree with you.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
In what way is this significantly more than the U.K. is doing?
Cancelling NordStream2 is Germany shouldering the biggest hit in these first round of sanctions, but otherwise they are much of a muchness.
There’s a lot of non-specific complaining without setting out what the differences are. On the blocked banks the U.K. and EU share 2 out of the 3 for example.
Keep trying Lady Haw Haw
Bet you’re pleased Mammy knows best!
You and Malcolm are like a pair of Emporers riding around and arguing about who is dressed the finest whilst neither of you is wearing more than a transparent fig leaf.
"Why I blame the arrogant, foolish West: Our response to this crisis in Ukraine has been to react with mistrust and abuse, and with blatant attempts to worsen the situation, writes Peter Hitchens"
Hitchens is just a loudmouth contrarian, trying to get clicks and likes for the Mail. We should all have learned during the pandemic, that such types generate way more heat than light.
Oh, and the horseshoe of political views, where the left and right end up almost meeting, is definitely true when it comes to issues like Russia.
On that note, I shall take a few days off from here. Ukranian situation is way too close to home, to want to get into arguments with random internet people.
I actually agree with quite a lot of what Hichens says there, but then he ruins it all near the end, talking about "anti-Putin hysteria", and the implication that the West should do nothing now. The West certainly carries a fair level of responsibility for driving Russia in general, and Putin in particular, away from a pro-Western view, for economic, legal, and strategic reasons, but that doesn't at all mean it shouldn't try and stand up to him or deter him further, now we are in this current situation.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader.
I'm not sure they are paid and I don't like to accuse regulars of trolling (which is the base of all base accusations and a sign that you've run out of steam) but I totally agree with you.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
Odd comments coming from someone who seems to somewhat back Russia in this, and another whose hero is paid by Russia.
Good morning everyone. Very pleasant here, although still a bit chilly.
I don't get the impression (yet; I may be wrong) that any Russian troops have moved further into Ukraine that the two breakaway states. If they stop there; what do we, in the sense of the West, do?
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
Any dirty money is welcome here, just fork out for your golden visa.
Introduced by Labour, removed by the Conservatives.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader.
I'm not sure they are paid and I don't like to accuse regulars of trolling (which is the base of all base accusations and a sign that you've run out of steam) but I totally agree with you.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
Its funny really. I and others have been under the cosh for weeks by pointing out that we won't stand up to Putin and we won't actually do the sanctions we threaten. And yet here we are where sanctions would be "Blood and Soil Racism" by applying English laws equally to British citizens and to assets lodged in England by foreign nationals.
"Donald Trump has declared the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he was still president as he called Vladimir Putin a "genius". The former US president accused the current one, Joe Biden, of being "weak" in his response to Mr Putin's sending of forces into separatist enclaves in the east of Ukraine.
Mr Trump said in an interview on Tuesday that he admired "tough cookie" Mr Putin, describing his latest move as "genius". "Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine as independent. That's wonderful. How smart is that? This is genius," he told The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.
"I knew Putin very well. I got along with him great. He's got a lot of great charm and a lot of pride. He loves his country." The 75-year-old said that as president, he would talk to Mr Putin about wanting to invade Ukraine. "I used to talk to him about it. I said, 'You can't do it. You're not gonna do it'. But I could see that he wanted it."
Mr Trump warned oil and gas prices would rise, to the benefit of the Russian president. Mr Trump said: "I know Vladimir Putin very well, and he would have never done, during the Trump administration, what he is doing now, no way! "Now it has begun, oil prices are going higher and higher, and Putin is not only getting what he always wanted, but getting, because of the oil and gas surge, richer and richer.""
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
It's worth noting oligarchs moving themselves and money out of Russia may be opponents rather than friends of Putin. Individuals should be assessed individually, and money may need (in a moral sense) to be handed back. But just assuming a Russian is a friend of Putin is something that is unwise, given the chemical and radioactive attacks we've seen aimed at Russians here.
Nobody said that all the oligarchs are friends of Putin. Its just that if we're serious about turning the screws on Putin then that means all of the screws. An awful lot of Russian money tied up in London property - have we even considered generally freezing Russian assets?
A start, and something which ought to have been done already (& has been promised by government for several years), is passing legislation for a transparent register of foreign owners of UK property. There has been a draft bill around since 2018.
Not a chance the Tories will close the laundry down.
"Boots will begin selling single Covid tests for £5.99 from Wednesday, despite free kits being available via the NHS until 1 April.
Customers can purchase a pack of four lateral flow tests online for £17, or one test for £5.99, including delivery.
Next month people can buy them in-store for £12 for a pack of five." ===========
Going to say an event or seeing a vulnerable loved one and paying a £6 cost for peace of mind isn't too bad, but if you wanted to lateral flow for a period of time or say you have a family and you all wanted to test because you had come into contact with someone who had Covid well the cost will really rack up.
The vast majority of people just aren't going to test anymore.
I wonder how much of the population is still bothering as it is?
I have a box of LFTs from work, and I did use one this morning, but I have to admit that I am getting a little out of the habit at this stage. The remaining stockpile will last through until about the end of April at the rate of two a week; after that, unless my employer decides to keep supplying us with freebies, I'll almost certainly stop.
Nervous relatives and care home visits, in our case. Probably wise to stockpile them whilst they are free on the NHS.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader.
I'm not sure they are paid and I don't like to accuse regulars of trolling (which is the base of all base accusations and a sign that you've run out of steam) but I totally agree with you.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
Odd comments coming from someone who seems to somewhat back Russia in this, and another whose hero is paid by Russia.
Who is my hero???
I'm glad you put the adjective 'somewhat', neatly illustrating that you doubt the veracity of what you've just written.
And you're right to be cautious about it. I loathe Vladimir Putin and I think what they've done with the so-called separatist states is disgraceful
But I'm also a pragmatist when it comes to maintaining global peace. Moral crusaders are a menace.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader. As you say passports for sale and if not then have a shell company or two.
Then again you get awfully upset when people rightly criticise Salmond.
I still give his gaff a cheery wave every time I drive past. Has a beautiful garden as well, he must be very handy.
Looking at the almost non-existent UK sanctions against Putin and his mates in light of those imposed by the EU and the US and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tories have been bought. This is a deeply shameful day for the UK.
What nonsense. If they have been bought, why are there any sanctions in the first place? Johnson himself said that it was just the beginning.
It was impossible to do nothing, so they did next to nothing.
Na, if they had been "bought out", they'd have done nothing. Utter nonsense to call it a deeply shameful day.
Why have the last three Tory PMs accepted six figure sums to spend time with the ex wife of a former Putin minister?
What's the issue? He's clearly fallen out of favour with Putin.
Not only is he clearly out of favour with Putin, he's been a British immigrant for eighteen years and a British citizen for eleven years.
Pretty disgusting blood and soil racism to be referring to British citizens as where they were born rather than as British. Anyone who joins the BNP in doing that should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Park your BNP shrieks and treat them the same as any other. If we suspect that Russian and ex-Russian money is all linked to the Putin regime then stick an Account Freezing Order on them. Whilst we investigate. As we would any British citizen who has lots of cash that the authorities are suspicious of.
If they've been in the UK for 18 years, which for the benefit of your Scottish brethren is an actual generation, then it's not Russian money they have.
If there's any unexplained wealth then come up with EVIDENCE for that rather than saying "this person was born in Russia".
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
Whose next?
Who's.
We may have an idealogical difference of opinion here. I happen to think that in order to protect democracy you need to have some restrictions e.g. teaching that paedophilia is okay, or that it's alright to beat up your black neighbour, or that's a good thing to blow up a London bus. You know, that kind of thing.
A state-owned broadcaster in Putin's pocket on this occasion when he has so flagrantly breached international law? I think a ban, which could be temporary, would be a good move.
David Lammy on R4 demanding that the government suspends RT (Russia Today).
Really? The government should decide who gets to broadcast and not OFCOM?
I don’t think he’s thought that one through.
I think the Gov't should indeed ban RT.
We don't allow hate crimes. There's plenty of precedence for restricting some freedom in order to protect freedom. The Ultras on the Far Right hate that notion but it's an important one.
Not really in favour of banning TV stations. For a start I don't like the precedent of the government itself hammer banning stations. But if we have to, the process followed with Press TV (the Iranian outfit) and OffCom seems a better one.
Among other things, RT is on OffCom's radar - they have already been fined for breaches of the rules.
Interesting to see people who support a government that is legislating to criminalise peaceful protest, restrict the vote and put the executive beyond judicial scrutiny, while systematically reducing the powers of elected representatives, oppose the banning of Vladimir Putin's propaganda broadcasts.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
And the billions made in in the Russian oligarchy suddenly become lovely, pure British billions? So that’s what money laundering means.
Mr. Pioneers, I didn't pay much attention to the detail yesterday, but the mood music does seem to largely agree with you that, frankly, the UK should be doing more. Much more.
But assuming Russian = bad/friend of Putin, and then alleging any concept of nuance or treating people as individuals rather than Evil Russians, as some do, is not something I find credible or helpful.
Partisan and cheap, most certainly.
Sure - a lot of the rhetoric being flung around has been totally overblown, as these non-actions now demonstrates. I said on here a few weeks ago that we weren't going to defend Ukraine militarily and weren't even going to sanction / boycott Russia. And here we are. Yet we have heard endless Boris and pro-Boris guff on the subject, all just hot air.
If we are serious about wanting to sanction Putin and go after the oligarchs then there are a lot of Russian assets in London alone. We know that a lot of it is at best murky and now we are stating the source of the murk is an enemy.
So there are things we can do as we would do for any other dodgy money investigation. We've said we will do what it takes. And we're doing nothing. Which is why the media and opposition parties keep pointing to the elephant in the room. Tory patrons and donors make a lot of money off Russia, the party itself takes donations from former Russian players. Hardly unreasonable to point to the clear links in front of our eyes and ask "are these links".
The Tories under the current mob at least are never ever going to cut off the golden goose. All hot air and obfuscation.
David Lammy on R4 demanding that the government suspends RT (Russia Today).
Really? The government should decide who gets to broadcast and not OFCOM?
I don’t think he’s thought that one through.
I think the Gov't should indeed ban RT.
We don't allow hate crimes. There's plenty of precedence for restricting some freedom in order to protect freedom. The Ultras on the Far Right hate that notion but it's an important one.
Among other things, RT is on OffCom's radar
I bet they're quaking as much as their Vlad is ...
"Why I blame the arrogant, foolish West: Our response to this crisis in Ukraine has been to react with mistrust and abuse, and with blatant attempts to worsen the situation, writes Peter Hitchens"
Hitchens is just a loudmouth contrarian, trying to get clicks and likes for the Mail. We should all have learned during the pandemic, that such types generate way more heat than light.
Oh, and the horseshoe of political views, where the left and right end up almost meeting, is definitely true when it comes to issues like Russia.
On that note, I shall take a few days off from here. Ukranian situation is way too close to home, to want to get into arguments with random internet people.
I actually agree with quite a lot of what Hichens says there, but then he ruins it all near the end, talking about "anti-Putin hysteria", and the implication that the West should do nothing now. The West certainly carries a fair level of responsibility for driving Russia in general, and Putin in particular, away from a pro-Western view, for economic, legal, and strategic reasons, but that doesn't at all mean it shouldn't try and stand up to him or deter him further, now we are in this current situation.
Certainly the west's attitude to post Communist Russia in the nineties was a massive strategic error. The greed to buy up Russian state assets at knockdown prices led to the mafioso oligarchs of today. A problem in Ukraine and other former Soviet territories too.
One way to upset Putin is to expose the corruption and opulent greed of his kleptocratic friends and courtiers. I hope that we have our own trolls planting this stuff all over Russian Social Media. Navalny is no paladin, but I see why Putin found his campaign such a threat. Russia needs a few Bolsheviks agitating against their new aristocracy.
"Boots will begin selling single Covid tests for £5.99 from Wednesday, despite free kits being available via the NHS until 1 April.
Customers can purchase a pack of four lateral flow tests online for £17, or one test for £5.99, including delivery.
Next month people can buy them in-store for £12 for a pack of five." ===========
Going to say an event or seeing a vulnerable loved one and paying a £6 cost for peace of mind isn't too bad, but if you wanted to lateral flow for a period of time or say you have a family and you all wanted to test because you had come into contact with someone who had Covid well the cost will really rack up.
The vast majority of people just aren't going to test anymore.
I wonder how much of the population is still bothering as it is?
I have a box of LFTs from work, and I did use one this morning, but I have to admit that I am getting a little out of the habit at this stage. The remaining stockpile will last through until about the end of April at the rate of two a week; after that, unless my employer decides to keep supplying us with freebies, I'll almost certainly stop.
Throughout the pandemic I think I have used perhaps 4 in toto.
The 5 for £12 (£2.40 each) from Boots has already blown Ed Davey's overblown rhetoric from 2-3 days ago ("4 million face £500 tax on caring") to smithereens; he assumed £5.80 each.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
Whose next?
Who's.
We may have an idealogical difference of opinion here. I happen to think that in order to protect democracy you need to have some restrictions e.g. teaching that paedophilia is okay, or that it's alright to beat up your black neighbour, or that's a good thing to blow up a London bus. You know, that kind of thing.
A state-owned broadcaster in Putin's pocket on this occasion when he has so flagrantly breached international law? I think a ban, which could be temporary, would be a good move.
Next you will want to get the mob out to smash their windows, state control of all broadcasting and on and on.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
Whose next?
Who's.
We may have an idealogical difference of opinion here. I happen to think that in order to protect democracy you need to have some restrictions e.g. teaching that paedophilia is okay, or that it's alright to beat up your black neighbour, or that's a good thing to blow up a London bus. You know, that kind of thing.
A state-owned broadcaster in Putin's pocket on this occasion when he has so flagrantly breached international law? I think a ban, which could be temporary, would be a good move.
"Why I blame the arrogant, foolish West: Our response to this crisis in Ukraine has been to react with mistrust and abuse, and with blatant attempts to worsen the situation, writes Peter Hitchens"
Hitchens is just a loudmouth contrarian, trying to get clicks and likes for the Mail. We should all have learned during the pandemic, that such types generate way more heat than light.
Oh, and the horseshoe of political views, where the left and right end up almost meeting, is definitely true when it comes to issues like Russia.
On that note, I shall take a few days off from here. Ukranian situation is way too close to home, to want to get into arguments with random internet people.
He did spend many years living in Russia in the 1990s and knows how they think better than most people.
David Lammy on R4 demanding that the government suspends RT (Russia Today).
Really? The government should decide who gets to broadcast and not OFCOM?
I don’t think he’s thought that one through.
I think the Gov't should indeed ban RT.
We don't allow hate crimes. There's plenty of precedence for restricting some freedom in order to protect freedom. The Ultras on the Far Right hate that notion but it's an important one.
Among other things, RT is on OffCom's radar - they have already been fined for breaches of the rules.
I bet they're quaking as much as their Vlad is ...
OffCom shut Press TV down for actual breaches of a defined set of rules - rather than "We don't like them much".
Find something bad they have actually done.
Or are you in favour of arbitrary punishment by government? The withdrawal of UK citizenship by ministerial fiat, for example?
Perhaps we should extend that to expulsion from the country without process? The Government can decided whose is a wrong un, take their passports, put them on a plane. No appeal. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Looking at the almost non-existent UK sanctions against Putin and his mates in light of those imposed by the EU and the US and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tories have been bought. This is a deeply shameful day for the UK.
What nonsense. If they have been bought, why are there any sanctions in the first place? Johnson himself said that it was just the beginning.
It was impossible to do nothing, so they did next to nothing.
Na, if they had been "bought out", they'd have done nothing. Utter nonsense to call it a deeply shameful day.
Why have the last three Tory PMs accepted six figure sums to spend time with the ex wife of a former Putin minister?
What's the issue? He's clearly fallen out of favour with Putin.
Not only is he clearly out of favour with Putin, he's been a British immigrant for eighteen years and a British citizen for eleven years.
Pretty disgusting blood and soil racism to be referring to British citizens as where they were born rather than as British. Anyone who joins the BNP in doing that should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Park your BNP shrieks and treat them the same as any other. If we suspect that Russian and ex-Russian money is all linked to the Putin regime then stick an Account Freezing Order on them. Whilst we investigate. As we would any British citizen who has lots of cash that the authorities are suspicious of.
If they've been in the UK for 18 years, which for the benefit of your Scottish brethren is an actual generation, then it's not Russian money they have.
If there's any unexplained wealth then come up with EVIDENCE for that rather than saying "this person was born in Russia".
We know you are stupid Phil and find it hard to pick things up , it does not befit a Tory plant trying to pretend that they make all their money in the UK. They may have bought citizenship from your pals but your pretence that your pals will actually do something about it is pathetic. They have not trained you very well.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
Whose next?
Who's.
We may have an idealogical difference of opinion here. I happen to think that in order to protect democracy you need to have some restrictions e.g. teaching that paedophilia is okay, or that it's alright to beat up your black neighbour, or that's a good thing to blow up a London bus. You know, that kind of thing.
A state-owned broadcaster in Putin's pocket on this occasion when he has so flagrantly breached international law? I think a ban, which could be temporary, would be a good move.
Is there any evidence that RT is making a blind bit of difference to opinion here?
Bans can be counter-productive.
Focus should be on meaningful sanctions. Russian Tory donors are a much bigger issue than RT imo.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
Whose next?
We may have an idealogical difference of opinion here. I happen to think that in order to protect democracy you need to have some restrictions e.g. teaching that paedophilia is okay, or that it's alright to beat up your black neighbour, or that's a good thing to blow up a London bus. You know, that kind of thing.
A state-owned broadcaster in Putin's pocket on this occasion when he has so flagrantly breached international law? I think a ban, which could be temporary, would be a good move.
Intergalactic whataboutery there!
No wonder you appeared on Russia Today.
Under UK law OFCOM decides who gets to broadcast, not the government, and I don’t think a moral panic over a station that has almost no viewers (and would be viewable on the internet even after a ban) is worth rushing dodgy law through parliament.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
Whose next?
Who's.
We may have an idealogical difference of opinion here. I happen to think that in order to protect democracy you need to have some restrictions e.g. teaching that paedophilia is okay, or that it's alright to beat up your black neighbour, or that's a good thing to blow up a London bus. You know, that kind of thing.
A state-owned broadcaster in Putin's pocket on this occasion when he has so flagrantly breached international law? I think a ban, which could be temporary, would be a good move.
Is there any evidence that RT is making a blind bit of difference to opinion here?
Bans can be counter-productive.
Focus should be on meaningful sanctions. Russian Tory donors are a much bigger issue than RT imo.
I wouldn't support banning communications. Under what criteria? A very slippery slope.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader.
I'm not sure they are paid and I don't like to accuse regulars of trolling (which is the base of all base accusations and a sign that you've run out of steam) but I totally agree with you.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
Odd comments coming from someone who seems to somewhat back Russia in this, and another whose hero is paid by Russia.
At least we can string a few words together, only odd thing here is your pompous crap input. Try adding some value even if only a pittance. You have no idea who I think are heroes and your pathetic attempt at an insult just about sums you up, now F off and get a life of your own.
"Why I blame the arrogant, foolish West: Our response to this crisis in Ukraine has been to react with mistrust and abuse, and with blatant attempts to worsen the situation, writes Peter Hitchens"
Hitchens is just a loudmouth contrarian, trying to get clicks and likes for the Mail. We should all have learned during the pandemic, that such types generate way more heat than light.
Oh, and the horseshoe of political views, where the left and right end up almost meeting, is definitely true when it comes to issues like Russia.
On that note, I shall take a few days off from here. Ukranian situation is way too close to home, to want to get into arguments with random internet people.
He did spend many years living in Russia in the 1990s and knows how they think better than most people.
Yes, the frequency of Russian links of our hard right populist politicians and columnists is a curious coincidence isn't it? Nothing to see here folks...
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
And the billions made in in the Russian oligarchy suddenly become lovely, pure British billions? So that’s what money laundering means.
He is not bright enough to understand that, how did he ever get a job as PR agent for the Tories.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader. As you say passports for sale and if not then have a shell company or two.
Then again you get awfully upset when people rightly criticise Salmond.
I still give his gaff a cheery wave every time I drive past. Has a beautiful garden as well, he must be very handy.
"Lecturers admit self-censoring classes with Chinese students
Academics are self-censoring to avoid causing offence to students from authoritarian states such as China, a new report has said. Two thirds said they believed that academic freedom was under threat in higher education and more than two fifths felt the same about their freedom to select teaching content. The survey of 1,500 social science faculty members across a range of British institutions was conducted by academics from Oxford, Exeter and Portsmouth universities. Record numbers of students from China have applied to study in Britain this autumn, with applicants from the country now outnumbering those from Wales — the number of candidates has quadrupled from 6,900 in 2013 to 28,930 this year." (£)
The mistake was getting the Ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons.
Aside from the fact it was the West who strongly pushed for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, were they in any sense an independent weapons system? My impression of the USSR is that that kind of autonomy was exactly the sort of thing that they did not grant to their republics.
I'm confused again about govt's position. MPs asked @BorisJohnson yday if further sanctions needed fresh trigger of Putin invasion. Cleverly seemd to say no. Now @trussliz: "We are very clear there’s a further list of oligarchs" to be imposed *“in the event of a full invasion”….
I can't work out if it's a mess of messaging or policy. Did Cleverly last night set out the correct position? Or was that just new language to calm Tory backbenches?
Or are there extra sanctions, short of targeting more oligarchs, that will come before any further aggression?*
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader.
I'm not sure they are paid and I don't like to accuse regulars of trolling (which is the base of all base accusations and a sign that you've run out of steam) but I totally agree with you.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
Odd comments coming from someone who seems to somewhat back Russia in this, and another whose hero is paid by Russia.
At least we can string a few words together, only odd thing here is your pompous crap input. Try adding some value even if only a pittance. You have no idea who I think are heroes and your pathetic attempt at an insult just about sums you up, now F off and get a life of your own.
Now now, Malc. You have been a rather robust defender of Salmond on here, have you not?
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
Whose next?
Who's.
We may have an idealogical difference of opinion here. I happen to think that in order to protect democracy you need to have some restrictions e.g. teaching that paedophilia is okay, or that it's alright to beat up your black neighbour, or that's a good thing to blow up a London bus. You know, that kind of thing.
A state-owned broadcaster in Putin's pocket on this occasion when he has so flagrantly breached international law? I think a ban, which could be temporary, would be a good move.
Is there any evidence that RT is making a blind bit of difference to opinion here?
Bans can be counter-productive.
Focus should be on meaningful sanctions. Russian Tory donors are a much bigger issue than RT imo.
I suspect it's a bit like when some extremist party like the BNP was occasionally given some airtime on Question Time - they basically did more harm to themselves through expressing their opinions and positions publically than if they hadn't been given the airtime at all.
RT is probably similar. Perhaps in "normal" times when there's a much less pro-Russian connection to the headlines noone would really notice much but you only have to watch a few minutes of their output during this crisis to see how much of a state TV mouthpiece it really is.
Probably better to air it and laugh at it than to shut it down and thus suggest they're saying something you don't want people to know about.
The mistake was getting the Ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons.
Aside from the fact it was the West who strongly pushed for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, were they in any sense an independent weapons system? My impression of the USSR is that that kind of autonomy was exactly the sort of thing that they did not grant to their republics.
ISTR they were Soviet weapons located in Ukraine and the concern was that the nascent Ukrainian state wouldn’t be able to control them and bad actors might get their hands on them. Hence enthusiasm by both Russia and the West that they be removed from Ukraine. But they’ll still probably be the last state to give up nuclear weapons.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
Whose next?
Who's.
We may have an idealogical difference of opinion here. I happen to think that in order to protect democracy you need to have some restrictions e.g. teaching that paedophilia is okay, or that it's alright to beat up your black neighbour, or that's a good thing to blow up a London bus. You know, that kind of thing.
A state-owned broadcaster in Putin's pocket on this occasion when he has so flagrantly breached international law? I think a ban, which could be temporary, would be a good move.
Is there any evidence that RT is making a blind bit of difference to opinion here?
Bans can be counter-productive.
Focus should be on meaningful sanctions. Russian Tory donors are a much bigger issue than RT imo.
I suspect it's a bit like when some extremist party like the BNP was occasionally given some airtime on Question Time - they basically did more harm to themselves through expressing their opinions and positions publically than if they hadn't been given the airtime at all.
RT is probably similar. Perhaps in "normal" times when there's a much less pro-Russian connection to the headlines noone would really notice much but you only have to watch a few minutes of their output during this crisis to see how much of a state TV mouthpiece it really is.
Probably better to air it and laugh at it than to shut it down and thus suggest they're saying something you don't want people to know about.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader.
I'm not sure they are paid and I don't like to accuse regulars of trolling (which is the base of all base accusations and a sign that you've run out of steam) but I totally agree with you.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
Odd comments coming from someone who seems to somewhat back Russia in this, and another whose hero is paid by Russia.
Who is my hero???
I'm glad you put the adjective 'somewhat', neatly illustrating that you doubt the veracity of what you've just written.
And you're right to be cautious about it. I loathe Vladimir Putin and I think what they've done with the so-called separatist states is disgraceful
But I'm also a pragmatist when it comes to maintaining global peace. Moral crusaders are a menace.
That was referring to Malc, who I seem to have stirred up into an incoherent rage before nine in the morning.
The problem about being a 'pragmatists' in maintaining global peace is that sometimes things people call 'pragmatic' don't work.
The approach of some (not necessarily you) to Russia's evils has been rather incoherent.
2006: Russia poisons someone in London using a radiological poison, contaminating lots of places. "Oh." 2008: Russia annexes parts of Georgia. "Oh well, it's a far-off land." 2014: Russia annexes Crimea. "Oh, that's a bit naughty." 2014: Russia ferments war in the Eastern Ukraine. "Oh, that's also naughty. And we don't want to start WWIII." 2014: Russia shoots down MH17. "it was those nasty Ukrainians. But even if it was Russia, we don't want to start WWIII." 2018: The Salisbury poisonings. "Can we be sure it was Russia? And remember, we don't want WWIII !" 2022: Russia annexes parts of Eastern Ukraine. "But WWIII !"
I fear whatever Russia does, some people will react in the same way, pushing off as Russia causes immense harm to her neighbours and world peace.
So the question becomes: when do you say enough is enough ?
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
The mistake was getting the Ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons.
Aside from the fact it was the West who strongly pushed for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, were they in any sense an independent weapons system? My impression of the USSR is that that kind of autonomy was exactly the sort of thing that they did not grant to their republics.
IANAE, and from my limited understanding:
Nuclear weapons have a limited shelf-life. Modern designs are better, but the fissile material, yet alone the supporting equipment, degrade. Any nukes Ukraine got in the early 1990s would no longer be viable without severe, and every expensive, work.
However, the weapons would be a great source of highly-refined fissile material, of the sort we spend a lot of time and effort preventing countries getting such material. Ukraine has a large industrial base, and it's perfectly possible that they could have refined the material and made either dirty bombs. or simpler weapons designs.
The delivery systems are another complex issue. Even if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, they'd be unlikely to have suitable ICBMs (although they could have SRBMs). Therefore they might concentrate on tactical nukes. Or even Blue Peacock-style landmines.
The mistake was getting the Ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons.
Aside from the fact it was the West who strongly pushed for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, were they in any sense an independent weapons system? My impression of the USSR is that that kind of autonomy was exactly the sort of thing that they did not grant to their republics.
ISTR they were Soviet weapons located in Ukraine and the concern was that the nascent Ukrainian state wouldn’t be able to control them and bad actors might get their hands on them. Hence enthusiasm by both Russia and the West that they be removed from Ukraine. But they’ll still probably be the last state to give up nuclear weapons.
The alternative was that the Ukrainians would keep the nuclear material, manufacture some fairly basic nukes for carriage by aircraft and scrap the missiles. They had some of the facilities for this, but not all.
There wasn't much enthusiasm in Ukraine for this - cost + Chernobyl memories.
The mistake was getting the Ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons.
Aside from the fact it was the West who strongly pushed for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, were they in any sense an independent weapons system? My impression of the USSR is that that kind of autonomy was exactly the sort of thing that they did not grant to their republics.
ISTR they were Soviet weapons located in Ukraine and the concern was that the nascent Ukrainian state wouldn’t be able to control them and bad actors might get their hands on them. Hence enthusiasm by both Russia and the West that they be removed from Ukraine. But they’ll still probably be the last state to give up nuclear weapons.
They were also under the control of mostly Russian soldiers - as in, soldiers from Russia stationed in Ukraine - and there was some doubt as to whom they would actually take orders from.
Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe This would be a fine moment for London to follow Washington DC & Prague, and name the street outside the Russian embassy (in this case Kensington Palace Gardens) after Boris Nemtsov, the courageous Russian democrat and friend of Ukraine assassinated in 2015. https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1496396336907890689
The mistake was getting the Ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons.
Aside from the fact it was the West who strongly pushed for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, were they in any sense an independent weapons system? My impression of the USSR is that that kind of autonomy was exactly the sort of thing that they did not grant to their republics.
ISTR they were Soviet weapons located in Ukraine and the concern was that the nascent Ukrainian state wouldn’t be able to control them and bad actors might get their hands on them. Hence enthusiasm by both Russia and the West that they be removed from Ukraine. But they’ll still probably be the last state to give up nuclear weapons.
It’s extremely unlikely that the same or even similar circumstances will occur again, but if they did I’m pretty sure the main actors would still be pushing for removal of nukes. I can’t think the presence of nuclear warheads which without technical support would have turned into festering accidents waiting to happen could have helped with the somewhat messy history of Ukraine over the last 30 years.
Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe This would be a fine moment for London to follow Washington DC & Prague, and name the street outside the Russian embassy (in this case Kensington Palace Gardens) after Boris Nemtsov, the courageous Russian democrat and friend of Ukraine assassinated in 2015. https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1496396336907890689
Perhaps the SNP could then troll them by renaming Melville Street as Salisbury Avenue?
"Lecturers admit self-censoring classes with Chinese students
Academics are self-censoring to avoid causing offence to students from authoritarian states such as China, a new report has said. Two thirds said they believed that academic freedom was under threat in higher education and more than two fifths felt the same about their freedom to select teaching content. The survey of 1,500 social science faculty members across a range of British institutions was conducted by academics from Oxford, Exeter and Portsmouth universities. Record numbers of students from China have applied to study in Britain this autumn, with applicants from the country now outnumbering those from Wales — the number of candidates has quadrupled from 6,900 in 2013 to 28,930 this year." (£)
That's feeble and unnecessary. Pre-pandemic I gave occasional seminars on British life to visiting Chinese groups, including courses in how British democracy worked and the advantages that we see in a multi-party system. Some participants were clearly intrigued, some sceptical ("how far do ordinary people really feel they have an influence?"). I was asked about the Dalai Lama and said truthfully that I'd met him and thought they were missing a trick by not talking to him before he passed on. I never had a complaint. My impression is that Chinese delegations are sensitive to criticism of their country but curious to find out how other countries work.
The mistake was getting the Ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons.
Aside from the fact it was the West who strongly pushed for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, were they in any sense an independent weapons system? My impression of the USSR is that that kind of autonomy was exactly the sort of thing that they did not grant to their republics.
ISTR they were Soviet weapons located in Ukraine and the concern was that the nascent Ukrainian state wouldn’t be able to control them and bad actors might get their hands on them. Hence enthusiasm by both Russia and the West that they be removed from Ukraine. But they’ll still probably be the last state to give up nuclear weapons.
It’s extremely unlikely that the same or even similar circumstances will occur again, but if they did I’m pretty sure the main actors would still be pushing for removal of nukes. I can’t think the presence of nuclear warheads which without technical support would have turned into festering accidents waiting to happen could have helped with the somewhat messy history of Ukraine over the last 30 years.
They would have had to acquire the ability to re-build nukes - fairly simple ones.
Ironically, one of the concerns about states acquiring that themselves is that, in the age of computers the simplest design sin't the old explosive lens idea. Its this -
The slight problem with this is that it has only 2 detonators - not 96 or so. And, apparently, nearly all the obvious deigns create a signifiant yield if only 1 fires.
To create a "1 point safe" weapon requires testing and learning some design tricks.
David Lammy on R4 demanding that the government suspends RT (Russia Today).
Really? The government should decide who gets to broadcast and not OFCOM?
I don’t think he’s thought that one through.
I think the Gov't should indeed ban RT.
We don't allow hate crimes. There's plenty of precedence for restricting some freedom in order to protect freedom. The Ultras on the Far Right hate that notion but it's an important one.
There is indeed. It was summarised as "freedom is slavery".
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
Yes but still as kleptocratic. The looting of Russia by the mafioso that we know as "oligarchs" is as bad as anything that has gone on in post colonial Africa. Any dirty money is welcome here, just fork out for your golden visa.
Erm... you know the government has stopped Tier 1 visa applications, right?
Interesting R4 more or less on COVID vaccination of children:,TLDR - it’s complicated as 1) the vaccines don’t stop transmissions so they don’t necessarily stop Granny getting it and 2) the benefits to non-at risk children are very small - even in a severe wave vaccinating 1 million children will stop 3 ICU admissions, in a mild wave 0.5.
I know there are lots of people here who welcome the end to Covid restrictions, but how many actually think it's a good moment to scrap sick pay for people who catch it, so that those on low pay without supportive employers have to go to work and infect colleagues? It seems to me penny-pinching gone mad, and I have Conservative-voting friends who are equally perplexed.
"Lecturers admit self-censoring classes with Chinese students
Academics are self-censoring to avoid causing offence to students from authoritarian states such as China, a new report has said. Two thirds said they believed that academic freedom was under threat in higher education and more than two fifths felt the same about their freedom to select teaching content. The survey of 1,500 social science faculty members across a range of British institutions was conducted by academics from Oxford, Exeter and Portsmouth universities. Record numbers of students from China have applied to study in Britain this autumn, with applicants from the country now outnumbering those from Wales — the number of candidates has quadrupled from 6,900 in 2013 to 28,930 this year." (£)
That's feeble and unnecessary. Pre-pandemic I gave occasional seminars on British life to visiting Chinese groups, including courses in how British democracy worked and the advantages that we see in a multi-party system. Some participants were clearly intrigued, some sceptical ("how far do ordinary people really feel they have an influence?"). I was asked about the Dalai Lama and said truthfully that I'd met him and thought they were missing a trick by not talking to him before he passed on. I never had a complaint. My impression is that Chinese delegations are sensitive to criticism of their country but curious to find out how other countries work.
It's been fairly common in the US and Australia for Chinese overseas students to form student groups who claim that any anti-current-regime comment or material is racist. It's happened in the UK as well, I believe.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
Yes but still as kleptocratic. The looting of Russia by the mafioso that we know as "oligarchs" is as bad as anything that has gone on in post colonial Africa. Any dirty money is welcome here, just fork out for your golden visa.
Erm... you know the government has stopped Tier 1 visa applications, right?
How much will I need to invest to be eligible under the Innovator route? You will need a minimum of £50,000 to invest in your business. This is significantly lower than the £200,000 minimum requirement under the previous Entrepreneur visa.
Interesting R4 more or less on COVID vaccination of children:,TLDR - it’s complicated as 1) the vaccines don’t stop transmissions so they don’t necessarily stop Granny getting it and 2) the benefits to non-at risk children are very small - even in a severe wave vaccinating 1 million children will stop 3 ICU admissions, in a mild wave 0.5.
I haven't listened to this but there is a flaw - vaccines will prevent some infections, which will prevent those children from spreading the virus, so they will stop some grannies getting it. Plus there is likely to be a reduction in viral load where breakthrough infections do occur.
We've had some very confused messaging about vaccines over the last couple of years. I think the general public has had the understanding that all previous vaccinations were 100% effective (probably as no data is ever presented about say the annual flu shot). So now when some people who are vaccinated still get ill with covid, and transmission is shown to be possible even at low levels of infection (in the vaccinated person) then people have made the cognitive leap that the vaccines are failing and vaccination does nothing to stop transmission,
The latter has been a big plank of the 'I don't want to get vaccinated' crowd. And yet its more nuanced. Being vaccinated most likely results in much lower viral load, which meas fewer virus particles to spread, so reduced levels of transmission.
I am amazed that the BBC are making this mistake. Oh, wait, no I'm not.
A new Russian field hospital on the outskirts of Belgorod, close to Ukraine border. New troops in the rural areas southwest of Belgorod, too. Simple question: if Russian aim is overt occupation of territory already held by republics, what are these new deployments for? 📷: @Maxar
"A large area is being cleared for additional deployments near Pochep. Troop tents and dozens of military vehicles are already present and several areas are being prepared for the arrival of additional equipment and personnel." Simple question: why? 📷: Maxar
"Why I blame the arrogant, foolish West: Our response to this crisis in Ukraine has been to react with mistrust and abuse, and with blatant attempts to worsen the situation, writes Peter Hitchens"
Hitchens is just a loudmouth contrarian, trying to get clicks and likes for the Mail. We should all have learned during the pandemic, that such types generate way more heat than light.
Oh, and the horseshoe of political views, where the left and right end up almost meeting, is definitely true when it comes to issues like Russia.
On that note, I shall take a few days off from here. Ukranian situation is way too close to home, to want to get into arguments with random internet people.
I actually agree with quite a lot of what Hichens says there, but then he ruins it all near the end, talking about "anti-Putin hysteria", and the implication that the West should do nothing now. The West certainly carries a fair level of responsibility for driving Russia in general, and Putin in particular, away from a pro-Western view, for economic, legal, and strategic reasons, but that doesn't at all mean it shouldn't try and stand up to him or deter him further, now we are in this current situation.
Certainly the west's attitude to post Communist Russia in the nineties was a massive strategic error. The greed to buy up Russian state assets at knockdown prices led to the mafioso oligarchs of today. A problem in Ukraine and other former Soviet territories too.
One way to upset Putin is to expose the corruption and opulent greed of his kleptocratic friends and courtiers. I hope that we have our own trolls planting this stuff all over Russian Social Media. Navalny is no paladin, but I see why Putin found his campaign such a threat. Russia needs a few Bolsheviks agitating against their new aristocracy.
There was an article, a while ago now, that compared the West's attitude at the end of the Cold War to the Allies' at the end of WWI (and contrasted unfavourably with the peace forged at the end of WWII) and, much like it was then, the Victor's peace stored up problems for the future. I have some sympathy for the argument. I know a few Ossies, and they feel that the West's attitude towards the reintegrating GDR was done on unfair terms.
That said, we are where we are much how like Versailles helped to birth a revanchist Germany, even if the Cold War settlement produced a revanchist Russia that's only a historical explanation and not an excuse for the current behaviour of the regime. What we, the West, do about it is unclear a fraught with danger.
Macron badly needs either Le Pen or Zemmour to be on the ballot and I expect that behind the scenes efforts are being made to ensure that happens.
The ideal situation for Macron would be for only one of them to qualify as I think that that would pretty much ensure that his opponent in the run-off would be on the far-right.
If neither or both qualify them Pecresse has a reasonable chance of making the final round and Macron would probably prefer not to face her in the run off.
We shall know for certain in 10 days time but my money is firmly on Macron.
On all the current hypothetical second round run offs, Macron wins - he beats Le Pen by 10 points, Pecresse by 12 and Zemmour by 20 or more. Pecresse got a brief boost after winning the LR primary in December but she's made little headway since and now polls consistently behind Le Pen but, as OGH says, Pecresse is guaranteed to be in the race - currently Le Pen and Zemmour aren't.
Despite the polling I think Pecresse is the only one that could beat Macron. Although Le Pen is polling better against him I think she (and Zemmour) have a ceiling whereas Pecrasse doesn't.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
At which point the left immediately switches to complaining about the goverment interfering in the independence of Ofcom.
I know there are lots of people here who welcome the end to Covid restrictions, but how many actually think it's a good moment to scrap sick pay for people who catch it, so that those on low pay without supportive employers have to go to work and infect colleagues? It seems to me penny-pinching gone mad, and I have Conservative-voting friends who are equally perplexed.
I think SSP should be reformed. If my employer can manage to give me full pay when sick for the first 12 months, then surely other employers can at least do this for the first month or two.
I know that certain posters will bang on about people throwing sickies, but ultimately these people get found out, and get moved on.
I don't however think that covid should be a special category of sick pay.
Looking at the almost non-existent UK sanctions against Putin and his mates in light of those imposed by the EU and the US and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tories have been bought. This is a deeply shameful day for the UK.
What nonsense. If they have been bought, why are there any sanctions in the first place? Johnson himself said that it was just the beginning.
It was impossible to do nothing, so they did next to nothing.
Na, if they had been "bought out", they'd have done nothing. Utter nonsense to call it a deeply shameful day.
Why have the last three Tory PMs accepted six figure sums to spend time with the ex wife of a former Putin minister?
What's the issue? He's clearly fallen out of favour with Putin.
Not only is he clearly out of favour with Putin, he's been a British immigrant for eighteen years and a British citizen for eleven years.
Pretty disgusting blood and soil racism to be referring to British citizens as where they were born rather than as British. Anyone who joins the BNP in doing that should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Park your BNP shrieks and treat them the same as any other. If we suspect that Russian and ex-Russian money is all linked to the Putin regime then stick an Account Freezing Order on them. Whilst we investigate. As we would any British citizen who has lots of cash that the authorities are suspicious of.
If they've been in the UK for 18 years, which for the benefit of your Scottish brethren is an actual generation, then it's not Russian money they have.
If there's any unexplained wealth then come up with EVIDENCE for that rather than saying "this person was born in Russia".
We know you are stupid Phil and find it hard to pick things up , it does not befit a Tory plant trying to pretend that they make all their money in the UK. They may have bought citizenship from your pals but your pretence that your pals will actually do something about it is pathetic. They have not trained you very well.
Please respect my privacy and please don't doxx me. I don't mind swearing or creative insults, that's your jam, but please don't use my real life name. I've asked nicely.
I'm not a Tory anymore but either way if he came here in 2004 then that would mean he came here under Tony Blair and not the Tories.
Though you probably don't recognise the difference to be fair.
Macron badly needs either Le Pen or Zemmour to be on the ballot and I expect that behind the scenes efforts are being made to ensure that happens.
The ideal situation for Macron would be for only one of them to qualify as I think that that would pretty much ensure that his opponent in the run-off would be on the far-right.
If neither or both qualify them Pecresse has a reasonable chance of making the final round and Macron would probably prefer not to face her in the run off.
We shall know for certain in 10 days time but my money is firmly on Macron.
"Lecturers admit self-censoring classes with Chinese students
Academics are self-censoring to avoid causing offence to students from authoritarian states such as China, a new report has said. Two thirds said they believed that academic freedom was under threat in higher education and more than two fifths felt the same about their freedom to select teaching content. The survey of 1,500 social science faculty members across a range of British institutions was conducted by academics from Oxford, Exeter and Portsmouth universities. Record numbers of students from China have applied to study in Britain this autumn, with applicants from the country now outnumbering those from Wales — the number of candidates has quadrupled from 6,900 in 2013 to 28,930 this year." (£)
That's feeble and unnecessary. Pre-pandemic I gave occasional seminars on British life to visiting Chinese groups, including courses in how British democracy worked and the advantages that we see in a multi-party system. Some participants were clearly intrigued, some sceptical ("how far do ordinary people really feel they have an influence?"). I was asked about the Dalai Lama and said truthfully that I'd met him and thought they were missing a trick by not talking to him before he passed on. I never had a complaint. My impression is that Chinese delegations are sensitive to criticism of their country but curious to find out how other countries work.
It's been fairly common in the US and Australia for Chinese overseas students to form student groups who claim that any anti-current-regime comment or material is racist. It's happened in the UK as well, I believe.
There are a lot of chinese PhD students around, and the suspicion is that an awful lot of them are in the employ of the chinese state. We have four 'self-funded' Chinese PhD students in my chemistry lab (not my students - I share a decent size lab). They are all nice people, but I do wonder sometimes!
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
And the billions made in in the Russian oligarchy suddenly become lovely, pure British billions? So that’s what money laundering means.
Yes.
People made billions in the nineties under Yeltsin. What are we supposed to do to reverse that?
Twenty years later, it's happened already. It is, what it is.
Interesting R4 more or less on COVID vaccination of children:,TLDR - it’s complicated as 1) the vaccines don’t stop transmissions so they don’t necessarily stop Granny getting it and 2) the benefits to non-at risk children are very small - even in a severe wave vaccinating 1 million children will stop 3 ICU admissions, in a mild wave 0.5.
I haven't listened to this but there is a flaw - vaccines will prevent some infections, which will prevent those children from spreading the virus, so they will stop some grannies getting it. Plus there is likely to be a reduction in viral load where breakthrough infections do occur.
We've had some very confused messaging about vaccines over the last couple of years. I think the general public has had the understanding that all previous vaccinations were 100% effective (probably as no data is ever presented about say the annual flu shot). So now when some people who are vaccinated still get ill with covid, and transmission is shown to be possible even at low levels of infection (in the vaccinated person) then people have made the cognitive leap that the vaccines are failing and vaccination does nothing to stop transmission,
The latter has been a big plank of the 'I don't want to get vaccinated' crowd. And yet its more nuanced. Being vaccinated most likely results in much lower viral load, which meas fewer virus particles to spread, so reduced levels of transmission.
I am amazed that the BBC are making this mistake. Oh, wait, no I'm not.
What is the effectiveness of the flu vaccine, out of interest? 60-70%?
I know there are lots of people here who welcome the end to Covid restrictions, but how many actually think it's a good moment to scrap sick pay for people who catch it, so that those on low pay without supportive employers have to go to work and infect colleagues? It seems to me penny-pinching gone mad, and I have Conservative-voting friends who are equally perplexed.
Seems to me to be counter-productive, electorally, to require a negative LFT before one is allowed to visit a Care Home, but to charge for it. I lot of visitors to Care Homes are equally aged spouses. Cruel, too.
I know there are lots of people here who welcome the end to Covid restrictions, but how many actually think it's a good moment to scrap sick pay for people who catch it, so that those on low pay without supportive employers have to go to work and infect colleagues? It seems to me penny-pinching gone mad, and I have Conservative-voting friends who are equally perplexed.
Seems to me to be counter-productive, electorally, to require a negative LFT before one is allowed to visit a Care Home, but to charge for it. I lot of visitors to Care Homes are equally aged spouses. Cruel, too.
Also inequitable compared to those who are likely still to be able to get them, for free, from work.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
And doesn’t advocate the extra-judicial banning of RT
Jesus wept.
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
Whose next?
Who's.
We may have an idealogical difference of opinion here. I happen to think that in order to protect democracy you need to have some restrictions e.g. teaching that paedophilia is okay, or that it's alright to beat up your black neighbour, or that's a good thing to blow up a London bus. You know, that kind of thing.
But these are all restrictions on actions, not on speech.
I'm old enough to rememeber when freedom of speech wasn't a left v right issue. If it has become such now, it's only because the left have given up on the idea.
I've just discovered that isage was founded by Carole Cadwalladr. Others may be aware, but I was totally in the dark. How has this not been more prominent? If there was a campaign group founded by a notorious right-wing campaigner/journalist - Toby Young, say - well, they'd be given airtime, but the background to the group would always be made clear.
I know there are lots of people here who welcome the end to Covid restrictions, but how many actually think it's a good moment to scrap sick pay for people who catch it, so that those on low pay without supportive employers have to go to work and infect colleagues? It seems to me penny-pinching gone mad, and I have Conservative-voting friends who are equally perplexed.
I think SSP should be reformed. If my employer can manage to give me full pay when sick for the first 12 months, then surely other employers can at least do this for the first month or two.
I know that certain posters will bang on about people throwing sickies, but ultimately these people get found out, and get moved on.
I don't however think that covid should be a special category of sick pay.
Sometimes smaller employers, with only, say, two or three staff find its difficult to manage with 33-50% of their staff missing. They need to replace them, especially if the remaining staff member has a holiday booked.
Comments
We will extend the territorial sanctions imposed on Crimea (which have not made any difference at all in eight years)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7787c0f6-9421-11ec-bcf4-9dde9b8243da?shareToken=fd0643f3fd02c9d5575166e71d23ed57 https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1496395140600061952/photo/1
With a full disclosure and proof of beneficial ownership of frozen assets they say relate to them.
If we are serious about wanting to sanction Putin and go after the oligarchs then there are a lot of Russian assets in London alone. We know that a lot of it is at best murky and now we are stating the source of the murk is an enemy.
So there are things we can do as we would do for any other dodgy money investigation. We've said we will do what it takes. And we're doing nothing. Which is why the media and opposition parties keep pointing to the elephant in the room. Tory patrons and donors make a lot of money off Russia, the party itself takes donations from former Russian players. Hardly unreasonable to point to the clear links in front of our eyes and ask "are these links".
And they certainly were friends of Putin at one point. Chernukhin was Putin's Deputy Finance minister.
There's an awful, awful, awful lot of veeeeeeery dirty money around the Premier League ...
The real questions for Europe* are these:
1. Can Europe* stop funding Russian military expansionism by weaning itself off Russian fossil fuels?
2. Can Europe* fund and organise its defence to provide a military block to the next stage of Russian expansionism, in the absence of US leadership on the assumption that a Trumpist will be the next US President?
* By "Europe" here I mean a minimally viable group of European states. This might be the European members of NATO, or it might be a smaller subset determined to draw a line that they will defend.
We can go for a walk where it's quiet and dry
And talk about precious things
As an Israeli he can pretty much come and go as he likes in the UK. Six months at a time. In theory he's not supposed to conduct work in the UK but he owns so many global companies that this is just a paper restriction.
He never stopped in London for more than a few days at a time so the 6 month rule has made bugger all difference to him.
As you say passports for sale and if not then have a shell company or two.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
For the umpteenth time Carlotta Vanski ... it's not difficult to legislate a ban on Russia Today. If the law is your only defence here, then we pass a law. It can be done by emergency in a matter of hours.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1496396605813137412
Later?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/02/23/donald-trump-hails-vladimir-putin-genius-russias-invasion-ukraine/
"Donald Trump has declared the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he was still president as he called Vladimir Putin a "genius". The former US president accused the current one, Joe Biden, of being "weak" in his response to Mr Putin's sending of forces into separatist enclaves in the east of Ukraine.
Mr Trump said in an interview on Tuesday that he admired "tough cookie" Mr Putin, describing his latest move as "genius". "Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine as independent. That's wonderful. How smart is that? This is genius," he told The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.
"I knew Putin very well. I got along with him great. He's got a lot of great charm and a lot of pride. He loves his country." The 75-year-old said that as president, he would talk to Mr Putin about wanting to invade Ukraine. "I used to talk to him about it. I said, 'You can't do it. You're not gonna do it'. But I could see that he wanted it."
Mr Trump warned oil and gas prices would rise, to the benefit of the Russian president. Mr Trump said: "I know Vladimir Putin very well, and he would have never done, during the Trump administration, what he is doing now, no way! "Now it has begun, oil prices are going higher and higher, and Putin is not only getting what he always wanted, but getting, because of the oil and gas surge, richer and richer.""
Probably wise to stockpile them whilst they are free on the NHS.
I'm glad you put the adjective 'somewhat', neatly illustrating that you doubt the veracity of what you've just written.
And you're right to be cautious about it. I loathe Vladimir Putin and I think what they've done with the so-called separatist states is disgraceful
But I'm also a pragmatist when it comes to maintaining global peace. Moral crusaders are a menace.
If there's any unexplained wealth then come up with EVIDENCE for that rather than saying "this person was born in Russia".
We may have an idealogical difference of opinion here. I happen to think that in order to protect democracy you need to have some restrictions e.g. teaching that paedophilia is okay, or that it's alright to beat up your black neighbour, or that's a good thing to blow up a London bus. You know, that kind of thing.
A state-owned broadcaster in Putin's pocket on this occasion when he has so flagrantly breached international law? I think a ban, which could be temporary, would be a good move.
Among other things, RT is on OffCom's radar - they have already been fined for breaches of the rules.
So that’s what money laundering means.
One way to upset Putin is to expose the corruption and opulent greed of his kleptocratic friends and courtiers. I hope that we have our own trolls planting this stuff all over Russian Social Media. Navalny is no paladin, but I see why Putin found his campaign such a threat. Russia needs a few Bolsheviks agitating against their new aristocracy.
The 5 for £12 (£2.40 each) from Boots has already blown Ed Davey's overblown rhetoric from 2-3 days ago ("4 million face £500 tax on caring") to smithereens; he assumed £5.80 each.
That Trump post, a little below by Andy JS is absolutely gobsmacking.
Find something bad they have actually done.
Or are you in favour of arbitrary punishment by government? The withdrawal of UK citizenship by ministerial fiat, for example?
Perhaps we should extend that to expulsion from the country without process? The Government can decided whose is a wrong un, take their passports, put them on a plane. No appeal. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Bans can be counter-productive.
Focus should be on meaningful sanctions. Russian Tory donors are a much bigger issue than RT imo.
No wonder you appeared on Russia Today.
Under UK law OFCOM decides who gets to broadcast, not the government, and I don’t think a moral panic over a station that has almost no viewers (and would be viewable on the internet even after a ban) is worth rushing dodgy law through parliament.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
@AndrewMarr9 on the Johnson government's "pathetically inadequate" response to Putin's assault on Ukraine:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2022/02/londons-response-to-vladimir-putin-is-pathetically-inadequate
Academics are self-censoring to avoid causing offence to students from authoritarian states such as China, a new report has said. Two thirds said they believed that academic freedom was under threat in higher education and more than two fifths felt the same about their freedom to select teaching content. The survey of 1,500 social science faculty members across a range of British institutions was conducted by academics from Oxford, Exeter and Portsmouth universities. Record numbers of students from China have applied to study in Britain this autumn, with applicants from the country now outnumbering those from Wales — the number of candidates has quadrupled from 6,900 in 2013 to 28,930 this year." (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lecturers-admit-self-censoring-classes-with-chinese-students-wjlf07lng
@BorisJohnson
yday if further sanctions needed fresh trigger of Putin invasion. Cleverly seemd to say no.
Now @trussliz: "We are very clear there’s a further list of oligarchs" to be imposed *“in the event of a full invasion”….
I can't work out if it's a mess of messaging or policy.
Did Cleverly last night set out the correct position? Or was that just new language to calm Tory backbenches?
Or are there extra sanctions, short of targeting more oligarchs, that will come before any further aggression?*
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1496406071497400321
RT is probably similar. Perhaps in "normal" times when there's a much less pro-Russian connection to the headlines noone would really notice much but you only have to watch a few minutes of their output during this crisis to see how much of a state TV mouthpiece it really is.
Probably better to air it and laugh at it than to shut it down and thus suggest they're saying something you don't want people to know about.
The problem about being a 'pragmatists' in maintaining global peace is that sometimes things people call 'pragmatic' don't work.
The approach of some (not necessarily you) to Russia's evils has been rather incoherent.
2006: Russia poisons someone in London using a radiological poison, contaminating lots of places. "Oh."
2008: Russia annexes parts of Georgia. "Oh well, it's a far-off land."
2014: Russia annexes Crimea. "Oh, that's a bit naughty."
2014: Russia ferments war in the Eastern Ukraine. "Oh, that's also naughty. And we don't want to start WWIII."
2014: Russia shoots down MH17. "it was those nasty Ukrainians. But even if it was Russia, we don't want to start WWIII."
2018: The Salisbury poisonings. "Can we be sure it was Russia? And remember, we don't want WWIII !"
2022: Russia annexes parts of Eastern Ukraine. "But WWIII !"
I fear whatever Russia does, some people will react in the same way, pushing off as Russia causes immense harm to her neighbours and world peace.
So the question becomes: when do you say enough is enough ?
ukraine fm wants maximum sanctions on russia before putin takes further military steps against his country
us/allies won’t do that that, believe deterrent effect of holding toughest in reserve more effective
reality: doesn’t matter either way, putin has priced costs in
https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1496409022135738368
Nuclear weapons have a limited shelf-life. Modern designs are better, but the fissile material, yet alone the supporting equipment, degrade. Any nukes Ukraine got in the early 1990s would no longer be viable without severe, and every expensive, work.
However, the weapons would be a great source of highly-refined fissile material, of the sort we spend a lot of time and effort preventing countries getting such material. Ukraine has a large industrial base, and it's perfectly possible that they could have refined the material and made either dirty bombs. or simpler weapons designs.
The delivery systems are another complex issue. Even if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, they'd be unlikely to have suitable ICBMs (although they could have SRBMs). Therefore they might concentrate on tactical nukes. Or even Blue Peacock-style landmines.
There wasn't much enthusiasm in Ukraine for this - cost + Chernobyl memories.
But it was an option that was explored.
Jeremy Cliffe
@JeremyCliffe
This would be a fine moment for London to follow Washington DC & Prague, and name the street outside the Russian embassy (in this case Kensington Palace Gardens) after Boris Nemtsov, the courageous Russian democrat and friend of Ukraine assassinated in 2015.
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1496396336907890689
Ironically, one of the concerns about states acquiring that themselves is that, in the age of computers the simplest design sin't the old explosive lens idea. Its this -
The slight problem with this is that it has only 2 detonators - not 96 or so. And, apparently, nearly all the obvious deigns create a signifiant yield if only 1 fires.
To create a "1 point safe" weapon requires testing and learning some design tricks.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/johnsons-germany-comparison-highlights-uk-sick-pay-deficit
https://www.davidsonmorris.com/uk-innovator-visa/
How much will I need to invest to be eligible under the Innovator route?
You will need a minimum of £50,000 to invest in your business. This is significantly lower than the £200,000 minimum requirement under the previous Entrepreneur visa.
We've had some very confused messaging about vaccines over the last couple of years. I think the general public has had the understanding that all previous vaccinations were 100% effective (probably as no data is ever presented about say the annual flu shot). So now when some people who are vaccinated still get ill with covid, and transmission is shown to be possible even at low levels of infection (in the vaccinated person) then people have made the cognitive leap that the vaccines are failing and vaccination does nothing to stop transmission,
The latter has been a big plank of the 'I don't want to get vaccinated' crowd. And yet its more nuanced. Being vaccinated most likely results in much lower viral load, which meas fewer virus particles to spread, so reduced levels of transmission.
I am amazed that the BBC are making this mistake. Oh, wait, no I'm not.
📷: @Maxar
"A large area is being cleared for additional deployments near Pochep. Troop tents and dozens of military vehicles are already present and several areas are being prepared for the arrival of additional equipment and personnel." Simple question: why?
📷: Maxar
https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1496414367549730816
That said, we are where we are much how like Versailles helped to birth a revanchist Germany, even if the Cold War settlement produced a revanchist Russia that's only a historical explanation and not an excuse for the current behaviour of the regime. What we, the West, do about it is unclear a fraught with danger.
I know that certain posters will bang on about people throwing sickies, but ultimately these people get found out, and get moved on.
I don't however think that covid should be a special category of sick pay.
I'm not a Tory anymore but either way if he came here in 2004 then that would mean he came here under Tony Blair and not the Tories.
Though you probably don't recognise the difference to be fair.
People made billions in the nineties under Yeltsin. What are we supposed to do to reverse that?
Twenty years later, it's happened already. It is, what it is.
Cruel, too.
I'm old enough to rememeber when freedom of speech wasn't a left v right issue. If it has become such now, it's only because the left have given up on the idea.