Ahghhhhh....Reports of "Truckloads of Ukrainian Aid stuck in UK due to post-Brexit paperwork: charity workers who are trying to send aid to people in war-torn Ukraine say their donations are spending days stuck at Dover due to complex post-Brexit checks." (PoliticsHome) https://twitter.com/militaryhistori/status/1500889381166587904
Why are they in trucks in Dover
They should be airlifted direct to Poland
The sane approach would be to send money and purchase everything from Poland and or Germany / Surrounding countries.
The second approach is then to ship the stuff by lorry as that is cheaper than air freight.
The head of a charity actually made that point that by donating £40 they would have an immediate impact
And if humanitarian aid convoys are being held by red tape then the EU should exempt such convoys
Sorry to be a bit of a sceptic but the problem with that head of a charity stuff is the question of how much they are getting paid out of that charity money. The UK Red Cross accounts for 2020 show they had an income of £305 million of which £103 million was spent on staff costs. They employ over 4,300 people of whom only 28 are working internationally.
I am not saying don't give your money to them but it seems to me they have a vested interest in making sure charity passes through their hands rather than going direct to the people in need.
Not to mention dissing Ukrainians who are desperate to bring material aid & comfort to their homeland. That is equally outrageous IMHO.
Like saying the small ships that helped save the BEF from beach at Dunkirk, should have left the job to RN.
Don't be a twit. Trucking a random mixture of low cost garbage from UK to Ukr costs as much as the cargo itself.
here's what the Disasters Emergency Committee says about dosh you give it
"Approximately 93% of what you donate is divided between our 14 member agencies. Of this amount, they can use up to 7% to cover their own management costs related to the appeal (this includes things such as overheads relating to staff working on the response and monitoring and evaluation of their programmes). The remainder will then go directly towards the response programme. Of this, 50% minimum will pay for supplying items such as medicines, water, food, hygiene items, temporary shelters, tarpaulins etc. The rest will cover costs such as transporting these materials, the costs of staff carrying out distributions or providing health care (the majority of whom are locals from the affected area), or communications costs to ensure good coordination and information sharing."
So that's 90% of the money directed to the response program, which knows what is needed and how to bulk buy it.
DONATE
Yup. Donating “stuff” sounds great but is inefficient, and also means things are not sourced locally where possible, which is part of what the DEC response will try and do so the money ends up in local hands too.
I find it faintly astonishing that everyone in this thread blames the humanitarian effort for attempting to deliver stuff across the Channel, rather than the shitshow of post-Brexit incompetence for making sure the stuff gets stuck at the border.
The two things are separate issues. It's an example, relevant to current news priorities, of the mess that Brexit has created at the border. But it's also true that giving money is better than donating stuff - the same has been emphasised in single market member Ireland, for example.
Lol, Broonie trying the 'if it ever had been brought to my attention when I was pm' line in regard to oligarchs and the UK bending over to encourage their entry (matron!).
Ahghhhhh....Reports of "Truckloads of Ukrainian Aid stuck in UK due to post-Brexit paperwork: charity workers who are trying to send aid to people in war-torn Ukraine say their donations are spending days stuck at Dover due to complex post-Brexit checks." (PoliticsHome) https://twitter.com/militaryhistori/status/1500889381166587904
Why are they in trucks in Dover
They should be airlifted direct to Poland
The sane approach would be to send money and purchase everything from Poland and or Germany / Surrounding countries.
The second approach is then to ship the stuff by lorry as that is cheaper than air freight.
The head of a charity actually made that point that by donating £40 they would have an immediate impact
And if humanitarian aid convoys are being held by red tape then the EU should exempt such convoys
Sorry to be a bit of a sceptic but the problem with that head of a charity stuff is the question of how much they are getting paid out of that charity money. The UK Red Cross accounts for 2020 show they had an income of £305 million of which £103 million was spent on staff costs. They employ over 4,300 people of whom only 28 are working internationally.
I am not saying don't give your money to them but it seems to me they have a vested interest in making sure charity passes through their hands rather than going direct to the people in need.
Not to mention dissing Ukrainians who are desperate to bring material aid & comfort to their homeland. That is equally outrageous IMHO.
Like saying the small ships that helped save the BEF from beach at Dunkirk, should have left the job to RN.
Don't be a twit. Trucking a random mixture of low cost garbage from UK to Ukr costs as much as the cargo itself.
here's what the Disasters Emergency Committee says about dosh you give it
"Approximately 93% of what you donate is divided between our 14 member agencies. Of this amount, they can use up to 7% to cover their own management costs related to the appeal (this includes things such as overheads relating to staff working on the response and monitoring and evaluation of their programmes). The remainder will then go directly towards the response programme. Of this, 50% minimum will pay for supplying items such as medicines, water, food, hygiene items, temporary shelters, tarpaulins etc. The rest will cover costs such as transporting these materials, the costs of staff carrying out distributions or providing health care (the majority of whom are locals from the affected area), or communications costs to ensure good coordination and information sharing."
So that's 90% of the money directed to the response program, which knows what is needed and how to bulk buy it.
DONATE
Yup. Donating “stuff” sounds great but is inefficient, and also means things are not sourced locally where possible, which is part of what the DEC response will try and do so the money ends up in local hands too.
I find it faintly astonishing that everyone in this thread blames the humanitarian effort for attempting to deliver stuff across the Channel, rather than the shitshow of post-Brexit incompetence for making sure the stuff gets stuck at the border.
Local guys on Facebook saying this is bullshit, drove a truck all the way to Poland, waved through at Rotterdam.
If a truce is somehow miraculously agreed in Ukraine, someone is going to have to pay to rebuild an entire country, and make it once more habitable for millions of refugees
Judging by the photos and videos that will be quite pricey. The Ukrainians will rightly demand that Putin pays. Putin who has just impoverished his own country and sent it into default, perhaps
As the prospect of a red wave grows, a series of Republican missteps including recruiting stumbles, weak fundraising and intense infighting is threatening the GOP’s path to the Senate majority.
Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey dealt his party its latest setback late last week by announcing he would not challenge Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly this fall. His decision, which leaves no obvious front-runner in a crowded Republican primary, disappointed Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his allies who had spent months privately encouraging Ducey to run. . . .
Republican candidates in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are struggling to keep pace with Democratic fundraising. Recruiting failures have dashed GOP hopes in reach states like Maryland and threaten a prime pickup opportunity in New Hampshire. And a recent plan that would raise taxes on low-income Americans and seniors, released by the Republican Senate midterm chief, Florida Sen. Rick Scott, is putting GOP candidates in a difficult position across states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. . . .
Scott, the leader of the GOP’s Senate midterm efforts, released an 11-point plan late last month that would impose a modest tax increase for many of the lowest paid Americans, while opening the door for cutting Social Security and Medicare. The Senate Democrats’ political arm released a radio ad within 24 hours declaring, “If Senate Republicans win, we pay the price.” . . .
The Senate Republican leader forcefully rebuked Scott’s plan during the Republican leadership’s weekly news conference, which Scott was part of.
“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said moments after Scott stepped away from the event. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half of the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.” . . .
In Nevada, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, one of the nation’s most endangered Democrats, reported $10.5 million cash on hand at the end of last year, compared to Republican former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s $1.7 million.
Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock finished the year with $22.9 million in the bank, while likely Republican challenger Herschel Walker, the former football star who has been endorsed by Trump, reported $5.4 million.
And Arizona Democrat Kelly, a former astronaut who won a 2020 special election to serve out the final two years of the late Sen. John McCain’s term, reported $18.6 million in the bank. Arizona’s Republican state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the best-known Republican in a crowded primary field, reported less than $800,000 in the bank. . . .
Its numbers like those that make the Conservatives look even more contemptible for the donations they accept from people they shouldn't.
Under US federal law, campaign contributions from foreigners are prohibited. While politicos of all stripes have occasionally (in some cases deliberately) fallen afoul of the law, it is nevertheless a major disincentive.
So I wonder, why has UK not banned political donations from non-UKers? Would seem an obvious step. Especially IF national sovereignty and independence are truly core values?
Ahghhhhh....Reports of "Truckloads of Ukrainian Aid stuck in UK due to post-Brexit paperwork: charity workers who are trying to send aid to people in war-torn Ukraine say their donations are spending days stuck at Dover due to complex post-Brexit checks." (PoliticsHome) https://twitter.com/militaryhistori/status/1500889381166587904
Why are they in trucks in Dover
They should be airlifted direct to Poland
The sane approach would be to send money and purchase everything from Poland and or Germany / Surrounding countries.
The second approach is then to ship the stuff by lorry as that is cheaper than air freight.
The head of a charity actually made that point that by donating £40 they would have an immediate impact
And if humanitarian aid convoys are being held by red tape then the EU should exempt such convoys
Sorry to be a bit of a sceptic but the problem with that head of a charity stuff is the question of how much they are getting paid out of that charity money. The UK Red Cross accounts for 2020 show they had an income of £305 million of which £103 million was spent on staff costs. They employ over 4,300 people of whom only 28 are working internationally.
I am not saying don't give your money to them but it seems to me they have a vested interest in making sure charity passes through their hands rather than going direct to the people in need.
Not to mention dissing Ukrainians who are desperate to bring material aid & comfort to their homeland. That is equally outrageous IMHO.
Like saying the small ships that helped save the BEF from beach at Dunkirk, should have left the job to RN.
Don't be a twit. Trucking a random mixture of low cost garbage from UK to Ukr costs as much as the cargo itself.
here's what the Disasters Emergency Committee says about dosh you give it
"Approximately 93% of what you donate is divided between our 14 member agencies. Of this amount, they can use up to 7% to cover their own management costs related to the appeal (this includes things such as overheads relating to staff working on the response and monitoring and evaluation of their programmes). The remainder will then go directly towards the response programme. Of this, 50% minimum will pay for supplying items such as medicines, water, food, hygiene items, temporary shelters, tarpaulins etc. The rest will cover costs such as transporting these materials, the costs of staff carrying out distributions or providing health care (the majority of whom are locals from the affected area), or communications costs to ensure good coordination and information sharing."
So that's 90% of the money directed to the response program, which knows what is needed and how to bulk buy it.
DONATE
Yup. Donating “stuff” sounds great but is inefficient, and also means things are not sourced locally where possible, which is part of what the DEC response will try and do so the money ends up in local hands too.
I find it faintly astonishing that everyone in this thread blames the humanitarian effort for attempting to deliver stuff across the Channel, rather than the shitshow of post-Brexit incompetence for making sure the stuff gets stuck at the border.
Local guys on Facebook saying this is bullshit, drove a truck all the way to Poland, waved through at Rotterdam.
Yep we sent van loads from the local schools and they got through with no hassle at all. Waved through both sides of the water.
You still keep bigging up this neutrality option, but I still don't see how it could possibly work. Leaving aside that promising not to formally align with NATO etc is not a neutral choice if it is done only because they'll be killed if they do not, I don't see what it really gains the Russians either - Ukraine is already not in NATO or the EU but is clearly western aligned now, so other than pettily holding Ukraine back it doesn't achieve anything for Russia in terms of preventing Ukraine from leaving its orbit.
I can see Ukraine agreeing to it, reluctantly, but even though Russia claims to want it it doesn't seem to obtain much.
What it achieves is preventing what's happened in the Balkan States and Poland, with NATO troops right up to the Russian border. Neutrality would mean no Russian, American or other foreign troops there, ever - Ukrainer would be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe. My reading of Putin and Russian public opinion (insofar as we can judge from polls of doubtful validity) is that that's what they really want. Everything else is secondary.
Conversely, Ukraine wants to be in the EU, Western and prosperous. They don't really care about having foreign troops and missiles, except as a deterrent to precisely what's happening now. So part of the deal for them has to be security guarantees that they can rely on - a NATO statement that yes, we'll stay out, but not if Ukraine is violated again. In return the West could gradually wind its sanctions down if the Russians withdraw and the deal holds.
In other words, sooner or later the West will need to play a part in getting a lasting deal.
I don't think you can ever get around the problem that this would be rewarding aggression on the part of Putin. It would set a disastrous precedent for future conflicts, ie in Taiwan. And of course, having fixed Ukraine, Putin would be emboldened to deal with other things on the eastern borders he doesn't like. If we concede the principle that Ukraine must be 'demilitarised', why not Estonia?
I am not against this type of deal and wouldn't try and stop it, as it is up to the Ukranians to decide what they want to do. But I don't think it would be good news at all.
Cab anyone actually give a good indication of how much progress the Russians are making on Kiev? It seems pretty unclear. Some maps suggests they are steadily getting towards encirclement, others suggest no real progress being made.
Seeing has how even well-run charities are NOT totally efficient, sounds bit harsh to criticize Ukrainians who are eager to personally contribute to their country NOW rather than just sending a check?
My argument is NOT that giving to national or international agencies is bad, rather that it it wrong to assume that all individual donor efforts are wrong or foolish or (dare I say) counter-productive.
IF you wish to defend HM's current G, is it really necessary to diss these individuals?
What makes you think these donors are Ukrainian? Great if they are, but driving a load of random goodies UK to Ukr makes no sense in the world unless you intend to fill the vehicle with actual Ukies for the return trip.
If I were d_d the point I'd be hammering is, we never see tweets saying Two Ukrainian aircraft have been downed over the city, the military says, and bear in mind the US has the best cyberwar/disinfo capability in the free world, with native English speakers on its books for starters, so praps we are being painted a picture and Russia is in fact winning a war against people who are in fact fascists.
If I were d_d the point I'd be hammering is, we never see tweets saying Two Ukrainian aircraft have been downed over the city, the military says, and bear in mind the US has the best cyberwar/disinfo capability in the free world, with native English speakers on its books for starters, so praps we are being painted a picture and Russia is in fact winning a war against people who are in fact fascists.
But the Ukrainians are admitting when they lose aircraft. They admitted last week when they lost their most senior pilot in air combat over Kiev.
Interestingly the Russians don't seem to be flooding the internet with pictures of burnt out Ukrainian vehicles or shot down aircraft. Why might that be?
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
I see and respect point you are making. Still doubt you are correct in arguing that Goodwillie can NOT be called a rapist, even though a legal judgement has been rendered that declares him to be exactly that.
Ahghhhhh....Reports of "Truckloads of Ukrainian Aid stuck in UK due to post-Brexit paperwork: charity workers who are trying to send aid to people in war-torn Ukraine say their donations are spending days stuck at Dover due to complex post-Brexit checks." (PoliticsHome) https://twitter.com/militaryhistori/status/1500889381166587904
Why are they in trucks in Dover
They should be airlifted direct to Poland
The sane approach would be to send money and purchase everything from Poland and or Germany / Surrounding countries.
The second approach is then to ship the stuff by lorry as that is cheaper than air freight.
The head of a charity actually made that point that by donating £40 they would have an immediate impact
And if humanitarian aid convoys are being held by red tape then the EU should exempt such convoys
Sorry to be a bit of a sceptic but the problem with that head of a charity stuff is the question of how much they are getting paid out of that charity money. The UK Red Cross accounts for 2020 show they had an income of £305 million of which £103 million was spent on staff costs. They employ over 4,300 people of whom only 28 are working internationally.
I am not saying don't give your money to them but it seems to me they have a vested interest in making sure charity passes through their hands rather than going direct to the people in need.
Not to mention dissing Ukrainians who are desperate to bring material aid & comfort to their homeland. That is equally outrageous IMHO.
Like saying the small ships that helped save the BEF from beach at Dunkirk, should have left the job to RN.
Don't be a twit. Trucking a random mixture of low cost garbage from UK to Ukr costs as much as the cargo itself.
here's what the Disasters Emergency Committee says about dosh you give it
"Approximately 93% of what you donate is divided between our 14 member agencies. Of this amount, they can use up to 7% to cover their own management costs related to the appeal (this includes things such as overheads relating to staff working on the response and monitoring and evaluation of their programmes). The remainder will then go directly towards the response programme. Of this, 50% minimum will pay for supplying items such as medicines, water, food, hygiene items, temporary shelters, tarpaulins etc. The rest will cover costs such as transporting these materials, the costs of staff carrying out distributions or providing health care (the majority of whom are locals from the affected area), or communications costs to ensure good coordination and information sharing."
So that's 90% of the money directed to the response program, which knows what is needed and how to bulk buy it.
DONATE
Yup. Donating “stuff” sounds great but is inefficient, and also means things are not sourced locally where possible, which is part of what the DEC response will try and do so the money ends up in local hands too.
I find it faintly astonishing that everyone in this thread blames the humanitarian effort for attempting to deliver stuff across the Channel, rather than the shitshow of post-Brexit incompetence for making sure the stuff gets stuck at the border.
A quite astonishingly dim post. All anyone is saying is that it's not an intelligent or efficient way of doing things. How on earth does that equate to allocating blame? If I tell you it's best to fit window locks and a burglar alarm to your house, do you think that equates to blaming you rather than burglars for burglaries?
Perhaps indeed we are close to my suggested “deal”.
Secession of Crimea. Agreement not to join NATO. Some kind of deal in the Donbas (beefed up federal status and perhaps plebiscites on independence).
It's been proposed from the beginning, and is clearly more achievable than the broader stated goals of the Russians. The last one is tricky for both - from Ukraine it effectively gives up those areas for ever, since its not like Russia would permit a plebescite it would not win, and for Russia it requires them to reverse their recognition of the areas as independent (a minor concession, given they would still be de facto independent, but would still be a formal reversal).
Yes, and also Russia would need to recognise the whole of Ukraine formally and permanently, none of this "not a real country" stuff - I think Putin will find that harder than chucking the "independent" republics under the bus. Conversely Ukraine would need to give up Crimea and give proper devolution to the Donbas. In both cases difficult but not inconceivable, and would be vastly better than continuing this horror for months, and although Ukraine would promise not to join NATO they'd be able to join the EU, which economically matter infinitely more.
You may know the history better than me, but Putin claims Crimea wasn’t properly Ukrainian because it was given to them in the 1950s.
But wasn’t Russia given a chunk of the Donblas basin in return… so they should give that back to Ukraine…
If I were d_d the point I'd be hammering is, we never see tweets saying Two Ukrainian aircraft have been downed over the city, the military says, and bear in mind the US has the best cyberwar/disinfo capability in the free world, with native English speakers on its books for starters, so praps we are being painted a picture and Russia is in fact winning a war against people who are in fact fascists.
Nah.......
Well of course Nah, my point was I am a more talented and imaginative disinformer and liar than him.
You still keep bigging up this neutrality option, but I still don't see how it could possibly work. Leaving aside that promising not to formally align with NATO etc is not a neutral choice if it is done only because they'll be killed if they do not, I don't see what it really gains the Russians either - Ukraine is already not in NATO or the EU but is clearly western aligned now, so other than pettily holding Ukraine back it doesn't achieve anything for Russia in terms of preventing Ukraine from leaving its orbit.
I can see Ukraine agreeing to it, reluctantly, but even though Russia claims to want it it doesn't seem to obtain much.
What it achieves is preventing what's happened in the Balkan States and Poland, with NATO troops right up to the Russian border. Neutrality would mean no Russian, American or other foreign troops there, ever - Ukrainer would be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe. My reading of Putin and Russian public opinion (insofar as we can judge from polls of doubtful validity) is that that's what they really want. Everything else is secondary.
Conversely, Ukraine wants to be in the EU, Western and prosperous. They don't really care about having foreign troops and missiles, except as a deterrent to precisely what's happening now. So part of the deal for them has to be security guarantees that they can rely on - a NATO statement that yes, we'll stay out, but not if Ukraine is violated again. In return the West could gradually wind its sanctions down if the Russians withdraw and the deal holds.
In other words, sooner or later the West will need to play a part in getting a lasting deal.
That might have been possible in the past, though the sort of compromise that would end a Ukranin PMs career, but it is certainly no longer possible. Too much Ukranian blood has been shed now.
This ends only with the fall of Putin. Probably not this week, but likely before the summer. Russia is grinding to an economic halt, and its much vaunted army shown to be both incompetent and psychopathic.
As the prospect of a red wave grows, a series of Republican missteps including recruiting stumbles, weak fundraising and intense infighting is threatening the GOP’s path to the Senate majority.
Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey dealt his party its latest setback late last week by announcing he would not challenge Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly this fall. His decision, which leaves no obvious front-runner in a crowded Republican primary, disappointed Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his allies who had spent months privately encouraging Ducey to run. . . .
Republican candidates in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are struggling to keep pace with Democratic fundraising. Recruiting failures have dashed GOP hopes in reach states like Maryland and threaten a prime pickup opportunity in New Hampshire. And a recent plan that would raise taxes on low-income Americans and seniors, released by the Republican Senate midterm chief, Florida Sen. Rick Scott, is putting GOP candidates in a difficult position across states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. . . .
Scott, the leader of the GOP’s Senate midterm efforts, released an 11-point plan late last month that would impose a modest tax increase for many of the lowest paid Americans, while opening the door for cutting Social Security and Medicare. The Senate Democrats’ political arm released a radio ad within 24 hours declaring, “If Senate Republicans win, we pay the price.” . . .
The Senate Republican leader forcefully rebuked Scott’s plan during the Republican leadership’s weekly news conference, which Scott was part of.
“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said moments after Scott stepped away from the event. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half of the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.” . . .
In Nevada, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, one of the nation’s most endangered Democrats, reported $10.5 million cash on hand at the end of last year, compared to Republican former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s $1.7 million.
Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock finished the year with $22.9 million in the bank, while likely Republican challenger Herschel Walker, the former football star who has been endorsed by Trump, reported $5.4 million.
And Arizona Democrat Kelly, a former astronaut who won a 2020 special election to serve out the final two years of the late Sen. John McCain’s term, reported $18.6 million in the bank. Arizona’s Republican state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the best-known Republican in a crowded primary field, reported less than $800,000 in the bank. . . .
Its numbers like those that make the Conservatives look even more contemptible for the donations they accept from people they shouldn't.
Under US federal law, campaign contributions from foreigners are prohibited. While politicos of all stripes have occasionally (in some cases deliberately) fallen afoul of the law, it is nevertheless a major disincentive.
So I wonder, why has UK not banned political donations from non-UKers? Would seem an obvious step. Especially IF national sovereignty and independence are truly core values?
It has. You have to be on the UK electoral roll to donate to a political party.
If I were d_d the point I'd be hammering is, we never see tweets saying Two Ukrainian aircraft have been downed over the city, the military says, and bear in mind the US has the best cyberwar/disinfo capability in the free world, with native English speakers on its books for starters, so praps we are being painted a picture and Russia is in fact winning a war against people who are in fact fascists.
Here definitely isn't even, but there's a decent few big OSINT accounts that are even handed.
Given the US stance earlier today was that a significant majority of Ukrainian planes are still operable (https://twitter.com/DanLamothe/status/1500906875574968324), and the noticable lack of footage of downed Ukr planes, there likely haven't been that many shot down (sub-20). This tallies with RUSI & others' reports stating that the Russians are reticent to deploy their AA capabilities due to high rates of friendly fire (in Georgia half of Russian airforce losses were due to friendly fire).
As for the last sentence, may I encourage you to touch grass and speak to Ukrainians of your acquaintance and ask their view on the fascist issue (whose party got 3% in the last national elections).
Ahghhhhh....Reports of "Truckloads of Ukrainian Aid stuck in UK due to post-Brexit paperwork: charity workers who are trying to send aid to people in war-torn Ukraine say their donations are spending days stuck at Dover due to complex post-Brexit checks." (PoliticsHome) https://twitter.com/militaryhistori/status/1500889381166587904
Why are they in trucks in Dover
They should be airlifted direct to Poland
The sane approach would be to send money and purchase everything from Poland and or Germany / Surrounding countries.
The second approach is then to ship the stuff by lorry as that is cheaper than air freight.
The head of a charity actually made that point that by donating £40 they would have an immediate impact
And if humanitarian aid convoys are being held by red tape then the EU should exempt such convoys
Sorry to be a bit of a sceptic but the problem with that head of a charity stuff is the question of how much they are getting paid out of that charity money. The UK Red Cross accounts for 2020 show they had an income of £305 million of which £103 million was spent on staff costs. They employ over 4,300 people of whom only 28 are working internationally.
I am not saying don't give your money to them but it seems to me they have a vested interest in making sure charity passes through their hands rather than going direct to the people in need.
Not to mention dissing Ukrainians who are desperate to bring material aid & comfort to their homeland. That is equally outrageous IMHO.
Like saying the small ships that helped save the BEF from beach at Dunkirk, should have left the job to RN.
Don't be a twit. Trucking a random mixture of low cost garbage from UK to Ukr costs as much as the cargo itself.
here's what the Disasters Emergency Committee says about dosh you give it
"Approximately 93% of what you donate is divided between our 14 member agencies. Of this amount, they can use up to 7% to cover their own management costs related to the appeal (this includes things such as overheads relating to staff working on the response and monitoring and evaluation of their programmes). The remainder will then go directly towards the response programme. Of this, 50% minimum will pay for supplying items such as medicines, water, food, hygiene items, temporary shelters, tarpaulins etc. The rest will cover costs such as transporting these materials, the costs of staff carrying out distributions or providing health care (the majority of whom are locals from the affected area), or communications costs to ensure good coordination and information sharing."
So that's 90% of the money directed to the response program, which knows what is needed and how to bulk buy it.
DONATE
Yup. Donating “stuff” sounds great but is inefficient, and also means things are not sourced locally where possible, which is part of what the DEC response will try and do so the money ends up in local hands too.
I find it faintly astonishing that everyone in this thread blames the humanitarian effort for attempting to deliver stuff across the Channel, rather than the shitshow of post-Brexit incompetence for making sure the stuff gets stuck at the border.
Local guys on Facebook saying this is bullshit, drove a truck all the way to Poland, waved through at Rotterdam.
Just because some people managed to clear the border doesn't make it bullshit, of course. These issues have been widely reported, and to be fair taken seriously by HMRC.
As far as I can tell the problem was with the invoices. They couldn't cope with goods of zero value because it was for humanitarian purposes. Either the customs people got it wrong, which might be the ferry agents because a lot of the checking is outsourced to them, or the shippers missed some form or other. In any case, it wasn't sorted in a timely way.
Also note the issues were on the UK side, not the EU.
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
I see and respect point you are making. Still doubt you are correct in arguing that Goodwillie can NOT be called a rapist, even though a legal judgement has been rendered that declares him to be exactly that.
Could some of our legal eagles weigh in?
It has been shown on the balance of probabilities that he is a rapist. It has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. It really is that simple. For BRD corroboration is required. There wasn’t any. For BP that Is not required.
Believe me, the test for prosecution for rape is as low as it can be. If there is a “technical sufficiency “ it’s a go. There wasn’t.
But, seriously, the trend for Boris looks quite promising (for him) judging by a quick scan I had of the figures. I think that is worrying because for everyone's sakes he really needs to go. But it just ain't happening is it?
I'm not brave enough to predict he definitely fights the 2024 election but I cannot see how he departs before summer 2023 (May 2023 elections are admittedly a much more pivotal set of elections for the Tories).
Boris has risen from -31 to -7 (+24) in two weeks and Rishi is +15 (+12)
That's an incredible surge for Boris. Is he actually going to shrug off Partygate?
I guess a huge war in Europe, and potential nuclear apocalypse, is the kind of thing that might just do that. And he is having a good war. Involved, animated, sensible
I suspect some of the hysterical shrieking about Ukrainian refugees cruelly stuck in, er, France, by Bojo's insane Nazism, is actually sublimated anger that Boris seems to be escaping his Nemesis
Or maybe just a rally round the flag bounce that could blow away in an instant on a different breeze. 🙂
If anything it has brought a focus on Boris governments closeness to Putin money in the lead up to Putin’s barbarity, in a way that might not even have been scrutinised till a change of government, without this war.
Is there a volunteer role out on the Ukraine borders that fits a person like yourself, man with a suitcase loves foreign travel and experiences, got all the patter for meeting and empathising with strangers? It must be a 24hrs chaos on the bordering countries. Have you ever been close to a war zone?
I totally have.
I was once held at gunpoint, with a photographer mate, by Hezbollah, in a Hezbollah safe house in the cold mountains of south Lebanon, in a village - Machgarah - which was simultaneously being shelled and strafed by the Israelis. I heard the screams of people dying, and saw the bombs explode. They kept us for hours
Miraculously, Hezbollah did not briskly execute us (despite suspecting we were Israeli agents). When I got home I told some experienced Middle East hacks what happened to me and they fell off their chairs. Apparently our chances of surviving that were about 1%. We got very very very lucky
I'm getting a modest cold sweat even now, thinking about it. FFFFFuck
Held at gunpoint by hezzbollah with 99% chance of death whilst simultaneously shelled by the Israeli’s. 😲
How did you answer their questions?
A local teacher heroically ‘volunteered’ to interpret.
At first he was almost genial, but as he realised what was probably coming down the line, he got increasingly agitated. Finally he fled, ashen faced, after soulfully clasping our hands and whispering ‘good luck’
An unnerving moment, to be sure
The interpreter fled wishing you good luck? 🥵. What happened then?
What if the tie break question was Liverpool or Manchester United and your life depended on it 🤭
Go for Liverpool. Everyone hates United.
When Barry McGuigan was about to enter the ring for one of his fights in Belfast he was suddenly pulled aside by a group of the local terrorists. At gunpoint he was asked 'What side you on?'
If I were d_d the point I'd be hammering is, we never see tweets saying Two Ukrainian aircraft have been downed over the city, the military says, and bear in mind the US has the best cyberwar/disinfo capability in the free world, with native English speakers on its books for starters, so praps we are being painted a picture and Russia is in fact winning a war against people who are in fact fascists.
But the Ukrainians are admitting when they lose aircraft. They admitted last week when they lost their most senior pilot in air combat over Kiev.
Interestingly the Russians don't seem to be flooding the internet with pictures of burnt out Ukrainian vehicles or shot down aircraft. Why might that be?
Because the heroic Russian airforce has already destroyed the Ukrainian one? Also, Viktor (who'd good at Photoshop) is still pissed from the weekend.
Cab anyone actually give a good indication of how much progress the Russians are making on Kiev? It seems pretty unclear. Some maps suggests they are steadily getting towards encirclement, others suggest no real progress being made.
More the second than the first. Don't think they will get to Kiev this week. They are in a bad way with the supply lines.
If I were d_d the point I'd be hammering is, we never see tweets saying Two Ukrainian aircraft have been downed over the city, the military says, and bear in mind the US has the best cyberwar/disinfo capability in the free world, with native English speakers on its books for starters, so praps we are being painted a picture and Russia is in fact winning a war against people who are in fact fascists.
But the Ukrainians are admitting when they lose aircraft. They admitted last week when they lost their most senior pilot in air combat over Kiev.
Interestingly the Russians don't seem to be flooding the internet with pictures of burnt out Ukrainian vehicles or shot down aircraft. Why might that be?
I cannot believe Nick Palmer is this stupid Does he really believe that what Putin cares about is Ukraine not being in Nato? Seriously? He's an old-fashioned Tsarist imperialist. He's near enough admitted it. He can' countenance Ukraine outside the Russian orbit in any political sense. A democratic, law abiding Ukraine will always be a threat to Putin. He has consistently sought to undermine it.
Over the last 20 years Ukrainians have tended to vote more and more for pro-western candidates in their elections. Given Putin's murderous regime it's hardly a surprise that they would do so. For twenty years Putin has built a repressive lawless state at home and bullied his neighbours abroad with barely a peep from most of Europe. Now we're facing the consequences.
You still keep bigging up this neutrality option, but I still don't see how it could possibly work. Leaving aside that promising not to formally align with NATO etc is not a neutral choice if it is done only because they'll be killed if they do not, I don't see what it really gains the Russians either - Ukraine is already not in NATO or the EU but is clearly western aligned now, so other than pettily holding Ukraine back it doesn't achieve anything for Russia in terms of preventing Ukraine from leaving its orbit.
I can see Ukraine agreeing to it, reluctantly, but even though Russia claims to want it it doesn't seem to obtain much.
What it achieves is preventing what's happened in the Balkan States and Poland, with NATO troops right up to the Russian border. Neutrality would mean no Russian, American or other foreign troops there, ever - Ukrainer would be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe. My reading of Putin and Russian public opinion (insofar as we can judge from polls of doubtful validity) is that that's what they really want. Everything else is secondary.
Conversely, Ukraine wants to be in the EU, Western and prosperous. They don't really care about having foreign troops and missiles, except as a deterrent to precisely what's happening now. So part of the deal for them has to be security guarantees that they can rely on - a NATO statement that yes, we'll stay out, but not if Ukraine is violated again. In return the West could gradually wind its sanctions down if the Russians withdraw and the deal holds.
In other words, sooner or later the West will need to play a part in getting a lasting deal.
Russia surely wouldn't regard EU membership as being neutral. What if the EU, rather than NATO, decided to put troops there? So neutrality which does not prevent EU membership would be pointless.
Nor would Russia agree that Ukraine outside of NATO but a defence commitment by NATO is "neutral". And of course commitments by Russia do not last 20 years so we cannot trust them and hope they don't try again after ten years of military reforms and sanctions protections have been built up.
No, what we need is for Russia to withdraw in entirety. For Crimea to be given back so Ukraine cannot be invaded from all sides again. And for Ukraine to be part of the system of collective defence.
Ahghhhhh....Reports of "Truckloads of Ukrainian Aid stuck in UK due to post-Brexit paperwork: charity workers who are trying to send aid to people in war-torn Ukraine say their donations are spending days stuck at Dover due to complex post-Brexit checks." (PoliticsHome) https://twitter.com/militaryhistori/status/1500889381166587904
Why are they in trucks in Dover
They should be airlifted direct to Poland
The sane approach would be to send money and purchase everything from Poland and or Germany / Surrounding countries.
The second approach is then to ship the stuff by lorry as that is cheaper than air freight.
The head of a charity actually made that point that by donating £40 they would have an immediate impact
And if humanitarian aid convoys are being held by red tape then the EU should exempt such convoys
Sorry to be a bit of a sceptic but the problem with that head of a charity stuff is the question of how much they are getting paid out of that charity money. The UK Red Cross accounts for 2020 show they had an income of £305 million of which £103 million was spent on staff costs. They employ over 4,300 people of whom only 28 are working internationally.
I am not saying don't give your money to them but it seems to me they have a vested interest in making sure charity passes through their hands rather than going direct to the people in need.
Not to mention dissing Ukrainians who are desperate to bring material aid & comfort to their homeland. That is equally outrageous IMHO.
Like saying the small ships that helped save the BEF from beach at Dunkirk, should have left the job to RN.
Don't be a twit. Trucking a random mixture of low cost garbage from UK to Ukr costs as much as the cargo itself.
here's what the Disasters Emergency Committee says about dosh you give it
"Approximately 93% of what you donate is divided between our 14 member agencies. Of this amount, they can use up to 7% to cover their own management costs related to the appeal (this includes things such as overheads relating to staff working on the response and monitoring and evaluation of their programmes). The remainder will then go directly towards the response programme. Of this, 50% minimum will pay for supplying items such as medicines, water, food, hygiene items, temporary shelters, tarpaulins etc. The rest will cover costs such as transporting these materials, the costs of staff carrying out distributions or providing health care (the majority of whom are locals from the affected area), or communications costs to ensure good coordination and information sharing."
So that's 90% of the money directed to the response program, which knows what is needed and how to bulk buy it.
DONATE
Yup. Donating “stuff” sounds great but is inefficient, and also means things are not sourced locally where possible, which is part of what the DEC response will try and do so the money ends up in local hands too.
I find it faintly astonishing that everyone in this thread blames the humanitarian effort for attempting to deliver stuff across the Channel, rather than the shitshow of post-Brexit incompetence for making sure the stuff gets stuck at the border.
That’s always going to be a point of opinion around Brexit - and a lot to unpack - I’m just saying that a lot of experts over the years have told me to only donate “stuff” locally and donate cash (or specific stuff like old glasses) internationally. It does stack up when you think about it. Buy in bulk, buy close to the problem, and source via folk who are culturally sensitive to local preferences.
As the prospect of a red wave grows, a series of Republican missteps including recruiting stumbles, weak fundraising and intense infighting is threatening the GOP’s path to the Senate majority.
Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey dealt his party its latest setback late last week by announcing he would not challenge Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly this fall. His decision, which leaves no obvious front-runner in a crowded Republican primary, disappointed Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his allies who had spent months privately encouraging Ducey to run. . . .
Republican candidates in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are struggling to keep pace with Democratic fundraising. Recruiting failures have dashed GOP hopes in reach states like Maryland and threaten a prime pickup opportunity in New Hampshire. And a recent plan that would raise taxes on low-income Americans and seniors, released by the Republican Senate midterm chief, Florida Sen. Rick Scott, is putting GOP candidates in a difficult position across states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. . . .
Scott, the leader of the GOP’s Senate midterm efforts, released an 11-point plan late last month that would impose a modest tax increase for many of the lowest paid Americans, while opening the door for cutting Social Security and Medicare. The Senate Democrats’ political arm released a radio ad within 24 hours declaring, “If Senate Republicans win, we pay the price.” . . .
The Senate Republican leader forcefully rebuked Scott’s plan during the Republican leadership’s weekly news conference, which Scott was part of.
“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said moments after Scott stepped away from the event. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half of the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.” . . .
In Nevada, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, one of the nation’s most endangered Democrats, reported $10.5 million cash on hand at the end of last year, compared to Republican former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s $1.7 million.
Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock finished the year with $22.9 million in the bank, while likely Republican challenger Herschel Walker, the former football star who has been endorsed by Trump, reported $5.4 million.
And Arizona Democrat Kelly, a former astronaut who won a 2020 special election to serve out the final two years of the late Sen. John McCain’s term, reported $18.6 million in the bank. Arizona’s Republican state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the best-known Republican in a crowded primary field, reported less than $800,000 in the bank. . . .
Its numbers like those that make the Conservatives look even more contemptible for the donations they accept from people they shouldn't.
Under US federal law, campaign contributions from foreigners are prohibited. While politicos of all stripes have occasionally (in some cases deliberately) fallen afoul of the law, it is nevertheless a major disincentive.
So I wonder, why has UK not banned political donations from non-UKers? Would seem an obvious step. Especially IF national sovereignty and independence are truly core values?
It has. You have to be on the UK electoral roll to donate to a political party.
If I were d_d the point I'd be hammering is, we never see tweets saying Two Ukrainian aircraft have been downed over the city, the military says, and bear in mind the US has the best cyberwar/disinfo capability in the free world, with native English speakers on its books for starters, so praps we are being painted a picture and Russia is in fact winning a war against people who are in fact fascists.
But the Ukrainians are admitting when they lose aircraft. They admitted last week when they lost their most senior pilot in air combat over Kiev.
Interestingly the Russians don't seem to be flooding the internet with pictures of burnt out Ukrainian vehicles or shot down aircraft. Why might that be?
Because the heroic Russian airforce has already destroyed the Ukrainian one? Also, Viktor (who'd good at Photoshop) is still pissed from the weekend.
It doesn't look as though the Russians are doing too well. However Michael Kofman who very much seems a go to guy on these things remains of the view that they'll eventually surround Kiev.
I wonder what difference the cold weather may make this week.
If I were d_d the point I'd be hammering is, we never see tweets saying Two Ukrainian aircraft have been downed over the city, the military says, and bear in mind the US has the best cyberwar/disinfo capability in the free world, with native English speakers on its books for starters, so praps we are being painted a picture and Russia is in fact winning a war against people who are in fact fascists.
But the Ukrainians are admitting when they lose aircraft. They admitted last week when they lost their most senior pilot in air combat over Kiev.
Interestingly the Russians don't seem to be flooding the internet with pictures of burnt out Ukrainian vehicles or shot down aircraft. Why might that be?
Of course likely to be on the high side when it comes to Russian deaths and combat losses.
I saw something from a former DoD official who said that in 2014 Ukraine lowballed the number of opponent losses to keep credibility, and he speculated that they may be doing the same again. In some areas their numbers look very high (90 aircraft when we have evidence for about 25), others they look about right (vehicles), and I'd say that the Russian casualties look low given that it's supposed to be a combined dead+wounded+captured. US intelligence say 5000 dead Russians, + 2,000 PoWs, which leaves us with only 5,000 injured Russians, which looks low.
Cab anyone actually give a good indication of how much progress the Russians are making on Kiev? It seems pretty unclear. Some maps suggests they are steadily getting towards encirclement, others suggest no real progress being made.
In the North it seems the Russians have made nearly no progress in a week. On the Southern front they are having more success, at least in the short term.
Ahghhhhh....Reports of "Truckloads of Ukrainian Aid stuck in UK due to post-Brexit paperwork: charity workers who are trying to send aid to people in war-torn Ukraine say their donations are spending days stuck at Dover due to complex post-Brexit checks." (PoliticsHome) https://twitter.com/militaryhistori/status/1500889381166587904
Why are they in trucks in Dover
They should be airlifted direct to Poland
The sane approach would be to send money and purchase everything from Poland and or Germany / Surrounding countries.
The second approach is then to ship the stuff by lorry as that is cheaper than air freight.
The head of a charity actually made that point that by donating £40 they would have an immediate impact
And if humanitarian aid convoys are being held by red tape then the EU should exempt such convoys
Sorry to be a bit of a sceptic but the problem with that head of a charity stuff is the question of how much they are getting paid out of that charity money. The UK Red Cross accounts for 2020 show they had an income of £305 million of which £103 million was spent on staff costs. They employ over 4,300 people of whom only 28 are working internationally.
I am not saying don't give your money to them but it seems to me they have a vested interest in making sure charity passes through their hands rather than going direct to the people in need.
Not to mention dissing Ukrainians who are desperate to bring material aid & comfort to their homeland. That is equally outrageous IMHO.
Like saying the small ships that helped save the BEF from beach at Dunkirk, should have left the job to RN.
Don't be a twit. Trucking a random mixture of low cost garbage from UK to Ukr costs as much as the cargo itself.
here's what the Disasters Emergency Committee says about dosh you give it
"Approximately 93% of what you donate is divided between our 14 member agencies. Of this amount, they can use up to 7% to cover their own management costs related to the appeal (this includes things such as overheads relating to staff working on the response and monitoring and evaluation of their programmes). The remainder will then go directly towards the response programme. Of this, 50% minimum will pay for supplying items such as medicines, water, food, hygiene items, temporary shelters, tarpaulins etc. The rest will cover costs such as transporting these materials, the costs of staff carrying out distributions or providing health care (the majority of whom are locals from the affected area), or communications costs to ensure good coordination and information sharing."
So that's 90% of the money directed to the response program, which knows what is needed and how to bulk buy it.
DONATE
Yup. Donating “stuff” sounds great but is inefficient, and also means things are not sourced locally where possible, which is part of what the DEC response will try and do so the money ends up in local hands too.
I find it faintly astonishing that everyone in this thread blames the humanitarian effort for attempting to deliver stuff across the Channel, rather than the shitshow of post-Brexit incompetence for making sure the stuff gets stuck at the border.
That’s always going to be a point of opinion around Brexit - and a lot to unpack - I’m just saying that a lot of experts over the years have told me to only donate “stuff” locally and donate cash (or specific stuff like old glasses) internationally. It does stack up when you think about it. Buy in bulk, buy close to the problem, and source via folk who are culturally sensitive to local preferences.
I still have a major issue with that when something over a third of the money you donate is going to staff costs and rents on properties in the UK.
As the prospect of a red wave grows, a series of Republican missteps including recruiting stumbles, weak fundraising and intense infighting is threatening the GOP’s path to the Senate majority.
Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey dealt his party its latest setback late last week by announcing he would not challenge Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly this fall. His decision, which leaves no obvious front-runner in a crowded Republican primary, disappointed Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his allies who had spent months privately encouraging Ducey to run. . . .
Republican candidates in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are struggling to keep pace with Democratic fundraising. Recruiting failures have dashed GOP hopes in reach states like Maryland and threaten a prime pickup opportunity in New Hampshire. And a recent plan that would raise taxes on low-income Americans and seniors, released by the Republican Senate midterm chief, Florida Sen. Rick Scott, is putting GOP candidates in a difficult position across states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. . . .
Scott, the leader of the GOP’s Senate midterm efforts, released an 11-point plan late last month that would impose a modest tax increase for many of the lowest paid Americans, while opening the door for cutting Social Security and Medicare. The Senate Democrats’ political arm released a radio ad within 24 hours declaring, “If Senate Republicans win, we pay the price.” . . .
The Senate Republican leader forcefully rebuked Scott’s plan during the Republican leadership’s weekly news conference, which Scott was part of.
“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said moments after Scott stepped away from the event. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half of the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.” . . .
In Nevada, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, one of the nation’s most endangered Democrats, reported $10.5 million cash on hand at the end of last year, compared to Republican former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s $1.7 million.
Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock finished the year with $22.9 million in the bank, while likely Republican challenger Herschel Walker, the former football star who has been endorsed by Trump, reported $5.4 million.
And Arizona Democrat Kelly, a former astronaut who won a 2020 special election to serve out the final two years of the late Sen. John McCain’s term, reported $18.6 million in the bank. Arizona’s Republican state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the best-known Republican in a crowded primary field, reported less than $800,000 in the bank. . . .
Its numbers like those that make the Conservatives look even more contemptible for the donations they accept from people they shouldn't.
Under US federal law, campaign contributions from foreigners are prohibited. While politicos of all stripes have occasionally (in some cases deliberately) fallen afoul of the law, it is nevertheless a major disincentive.
So I wonder, why has UK not banned political donations from non-UKers? Would seem an obvious step. Especially IF national sovereignty and independence are truly core values?
They have.
These are donations from UK citizens who were born in Russia or from UK companies owned by Russians
If I were d_d the point I'd be hammering is, we never see tweets saying Two Ukrainian aircraft have been downed over the city, the military says, and bear in mind the US has the best cyberwar/disinfo capability in the free world, with native English speakers on its books for starters, so praps we are being painted a picture and Russia is in fact winning a war against people who are in fact fascists.
Nah.......
Well of course Nah, my point was I am a more talented and imaginative disinformer and liar than him.
As the prospect of a red wave grows, a series of Republican missteps including recruiting stumbles, weak fundraising and intense infighting is threatening the GOP’s path to the Senate majority.
Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey dealt his party its latest setback late last week by announcing he would not challenge Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly this fall. His decision, which leaves no obvious front-runner in a crowded Republican primary, disappointed Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his allies who had spent months privately encouraging Ducey to run. . . .
Republican candidates in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are struggling to keep pace with Democratic fundraising. Recruiting failures have dashed GOP hopes in reach states like Maryland and threaten a prime pickup opportunity in New Hampshire. And a recent plan that would raise taxes on low-income Americans and seniors, released by the Republican Senate midterm chief, Florida Sen. Rick Scott, is putting GOP candidates in a difficult position across states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. . . .
Scott, the leader of the GOP’s Senate midterm efforts, released an 11-point plan late last month that would impose a modest tax increase for many of the lowest paid Americans, while opening the door for cutting Social Security and Medicare. The Senate Democrats’ political arm released a radio ad within 24 hours declaring, “If Senate Republicans win, we pay the price.” . . .
The Senate Republican leader forcefully rebuked Scott’s plan during the Republican leadership’s weekly news conference, which Scott was part of.
“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said moments after Scott stepped away from the event. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half of the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.” . . .
In Nevada, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, one of the nation’s most endangered Democrats, reported $10.5 million cash on hand at the end of last year, compared to Republican former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s $1.7 million.
Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock finished the year with $22.9 million in the bank, while likely Republican challenger Herschel Walker, the former football star who has been endorsed by Trump, reported $5.4 million.
And Arizona Democrat Kelly, a former astronaut who won a 2020 special election to serve out the final two years of the late Sen. John McCain’s term, reported $18.6 million in the bank. Arizona’s Republican state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the best-known Republican in a crowded primary field, reported less than $800,000 in the bank. . . .
Its numbers like those that make the Conservatives look even more contemptible for the donations they accept from people they shouldn't.
Under US federal law, campaign contributions from foreigners are prohibited. While politicos of all stripes have occasionally (in some cases deliberately) fallen afoul of the law, it is nevertheless a major disincentive.
So I wonder, why has UK not banned political donations from non-UKers? Would seem an obvious step. Especially IF national sovereignty and independence are truly core values?
It has. You have to be on the UK electoral roll to donate to a political party.
Or own a company registered in the UK.......
Now THAT's an interesting wrinkle! Or rather a huge gap in the fence?
You still keep bigging up this neutrality option, but I still don't see how it could possibly work. Leaving aside that promising not to formally align with NATO etc is not a neutral choice if it is done only because they'll be killed if they do not, I don't see what it really gains the Russians either - Ukraine is already not in NATO or the EU but is clearly western aligned now, so other than pettily holding Ukraine back it doesn't achieve anything for Russia in terms of preventing Ukraine from leaving its orbit.
I can see Ukraine agreeing to it, reluctantly, but even though Russia claims to want it it doesn't seem to obtain much.
What it achieves is preventing what's happened in the Balkan States and Poland, with NATO troops right up to the Russian border. Neutrality would mean no Russian, American or other foreign troops there, ever - Ukrainer would be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe. My reading of Putin and Russian public opinion (insofar as we can judge from polls of doubtful validity) is that that's what they really want. Everything else is secondary.
Conversely, Ukraine wants to be in the EU, Western and prosperous. They don't really care about having foreign troops and missiles, except as a deterrent to precisely what's happening now. So part of the deal for them has to be security guarantees that they can rely on - a NATO statement that yes, we'll stay out, but not if Ukraine is violated again. In return the West could gradually wind its sanctions down if the Russians withdraw and the deal holds.
In other words, sooner or later the West will need to play a part in getting a lasting deal.
Russia surely wouldn't regard EU membership as being neutral. What if the EU, rather than NATO, decided to put troops there? So neutrality which does not prevent EU membership would be pointless.
Nor would Russia agree that Ukraine outside of NATO but a defence commitment by NATO is "neutral". And of course commitments by Russia do not last 20 years so we cannot trust them and hope they don't try again after ten years of military reforms and sanctions protections have been built up.
No, what we need is for Russia to withdraw in entirety. For Crimea to be given back so Ukraine cannot be invaded from all sides again. And for Ukraine to be part of the system of collective defence.
Before you lose access to the global internet and are stuck with Rus-net, I thought you would enjoy this humorous video. It asks “Are We The Baddies?”.
And yes. You are the baddies. You are the modern Nazis in fact. Anyway good day to you sir(s).
By the way the post war financial bail out of your bankrupt country won’t come without cost. I should think the decommissioning of 90% of your nuclear arsenal would be a reasonable starting point.
Yeah, maybe the Russians should sign the deal in a small railway carriage.
Seriously when this is over Russia must pay for sure and some disarmament would be a good idea but let’s not make the same mistake as after world war 1.
Who’s talking about world war 1? I’m talking about world war 2 - a generous financial aid package to the defeated aggressor in exchange for large scale demilitarisation (and if the Russian people should be so lucky, democratisation).
Cab anyone actually give a good indication of how much progress the Russians are making on Kiev? It seems pretty unclear. Some maps suggests they are steadily getting towards encirclement, others suggest no real progress being made.
In the North it seems the Russians have made nearly no progress in a week. On the Southern front they are having more success, at least in the short term.
The wikipedia map of the invasion has some columns of advance from the east that are now not far from Kyiv, but they would seem to have even longer for supplies to go to reach them than the Russian forces to Kyiv's NW.
Has anyone seen any news about Konotop, after the video with the Russian soldier delivering an ultimatum, and the Mayor agreeing with a crowd on defiance?
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
I see and respect point you are making. Still doubt you are correct in arguing that Goodwillie can NOT be called a rapist, even though a legal judgement has been rendered that declares him to be exactly that.
Could some of our legal eagles weigh in?
It has been shown on the balance of probabilities that he is a rapist. It has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. It really is that simple. For BRD corroboration is required. There wasn’t any. For BP that Is not required.
Believe me, the test for prosecution for rape is as low as it can be. If there is a “technical sufficiency “ it’s a go. There wasn’t.
To pick one thread out of this tangle (legal, semantic, media code of practice, epistemological etc)
You, Y, say that X is a burglar on the basis that a civil court has has found him so on the civil standard of balance of probabilities. It's a free speech country and you can do so.
X's recourse is to sue you in defamation, which is a civil action, and where once again the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. The pliantiff has to prove.
For Y to succeed he shows that on b of p X is a burglar. Which a civil court has already done. It's a res judicata.
X will have a really uphill struggle.
NB Corroboration in rape is not required in English law. Though it helps. Scots law is different.
Ahghhhhh....Reports of "Truckloads of Ukrainian Aid stuck in UK due to post-Brexit paperwork: charity workers who are trying to send aid to people in war-torn Ukraine say their donations are spending days stuck at Dover due to complex post-Brexit checks." (PoliticsHome) https://twitter.com/militaryhistori/status/1500889381166587904
Why are they in trucks in Dover
They should be airlifted direct to Poland
The sane approach would be to send money and purchase everything from Poland and or Germany / Surrounding countries.
The second approach is then to ship the stuff by lorry as that is cheaper than air freight.
The head of a charity actually made that point that by donating £40 they would have an immediate impact
And if humanitarian aid convoys are being held by red tape then the EU should exempt such convoys
Sorry to be a bit of a sceptic but the problem with that head of a charity stuff is the question of how much they are getting paid out of that charity money. The UK Red Cross accounts for 2020 show they had an income of £305 million of which £103 million was spent on staff costs. They employ over 4,300 people of whom only 28 are working internationally.
I am not saying don't give your money to them but it seems to me they have a vested interest in making sure charity passes through their hands rather than going direct to the people in need.
Not to mention dissing Ukrainians who are desperate to bring material aid & comfort to their homeland. That is equally outrageous IMHO.
Like saying the small ships that helped save the BEF from beach at Dunkirk, should have left the job to RN.
Don't be a twit. Trucking a random mixture of low cost garbage from UK to Ukr costs as much as the cargo itself.
here's what the Disasters Emergency Committee says about dosh you give it
"Approximately 93% of what you donate is divided between our 14 member agencies. Of this amount, they can use up to 7% to cover their own management costs related to the appeal (this includes things such as overheads relating to staff working on the response and monitoring and evaluation of their programmes). The remainder will then go directly towards the response programme. Of this, 50% minimum will pay for supplying items such as medicines, water, food, hygiene items, temporary shelters, tarpaulins etc. The rest will cover costs such as transporting these materials, the costs of staff carrying out distributions or providing health care (the majority of whom are locals from the affected area), or communications costs to ensure good coordination and information sharing."
So that's 90% of the money directed to the response program, which knows what is needed and how to bulk buy it.
DONATE
Yup. Donating “stuff” sounds great but is inefficient, and also means things are not sourced locally where possible, which is part of what the DEC response will try and do so the money ends up in local hands too.
I find it faintly astonishing that everyone in this thread blames the humanitarian effort for attempting to deliver stuff across the Channel, rather than the shitshow of post-Brexit incompetence for making sure the stuff gets stuck at the border.
That’s always going to be a point of opinion around Brexit - and a lot to unpack - I’m just saying that a lot of experts over the years have told me to only donate “stuff” locally and donate cash (or specific stuff like old glasses) internationally. It does stack up when you think about it. Buy in bulk, buy close to the problem, and source via folk who are culturally sensitive to local preferences.
I still have a major issue with that when something over a third of the money you donate is going to staff costs and rents on properties in the UK.
Can we agree that admin costs can’t be zero, since they go need people and estate? Though post Covid you’d think the latter might be revised. If we agree they can’t be zero then it’s becomes a questions of what’s best practice, and I’m guessing that varies by what experts you need. (E.g. Médecins Sans Frontières presumably has to employ doctors and the Red Cross needs planners and good logistics staff, who can’t work for free).
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
What's sacrosanct about it? It is a ludicrously inefficient bit of nonsense. Look at the Andrew Harper case: very clear evidence of intimidation, wrong outcome, and here's the killer point: one of the killers was on record as saying to a police officer on a previous occasion that if he tried to stop him speeding he would get what was coming to him. That's a fact having what we call in the trade both evidential and prejudicial value. A judge sitting alone would consider the fact, ignore the prejudicial and take into account the evidential. Jurors are thought to be too stupid to do this, so the fact is kept from them altogether. Result: injustice. If they are too stupid to be able to do what a judge is thought to have no problem with, they are too stupid to decide on anything.
Cab anyone actually give a good indication of how much progress the Russians are making on Kiev? It seems pretty unclear. Some maps suggests they are steadily getting towards encirclement, others suggest no real progress being made.
In the North it seems the Russians have made nearly no progress in a week. On the Southern front they are having more success, at least in the short term.
The wikipedia map of the invasion has some columns of advance from the east that are now not far from Kyiv, but they would seem to have even longer for supplies to go to reach them than the Russian forces to Kyiv's NW.
Has anyone seen any news about Konotop, after the video with the Russian soldier delivering an ultimatum, and the Mayor agreeing with a crowd on defiance?
Occupied, with an active resistance as far as I can see.
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
I see and respect point you are making. Still doubt you are correct in arguing that Goodwillie can NOT be called a rapist, even though a legal judgement has been rendered that declares him to be exactly that.
Could some of our legal eagles weigh in?
It has been shown on the balance of probabilities that he is a rapist. It has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. It really is that simple. For BRD corroboration is required. There wasn’t any. For BP that Is not required.
Believe me, the test for prosecution for rape is as low as it can be. If there is a “technical sufficiency “ it’s a go. There wasn’t.
To pick one thread out of this tangle (legal, semantic, media code of practice, epistemological etc)
You, Y, say that X is a burglar on the basis that a civil court has has found him so on the civil standard of balance of probabilities. It's a free speech country and you can do so.
X's recourse is to sue you in defamation, which is a civil action, and where once again the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. The pliantiff has to prove.
For Y to succeed he shows that on b of p X is a burglar. Which a civil court has already done. It's a res judicata.
X will have a really uphill struggle.
NB Corroboration in rape is not required in English law. Though it helps. Scots law is different.
So (assuming I'm understanding your last sentence correctly) a criminal conviction in Goodwoodie case would have been (theoretically) possible in England, but NOT in Scotland, due to lack of corroboration?
And (regardless of above) it is legally correct to call Goodwoodie a rapist guilty of committing rape?
"As I queued at a cash machine with another dozen disorientated Russians in Tbilisi, Georgia, a local man stopped, whistled at us, and shouted: “Russian warship, go f— yourself! Russians, go f— yourselves!” "
I wrote to my MP 9 days ago asking her to urge the government to be more open to Ukrainian refugees. Apart from a standard acknowledgment, I have not had the courtesy of a reply.
Very poor.
Our refugee policy shames us a country but shames the Tory party above all.
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
What's sacrosanct about it? It is a ludicrously inefficient bit of nonsense. Look at the Andrew Harper case: very clear evidence of intimidation, wrong outcome, and here's the killer point: one of the killers was on record as saying to a police officer on a previous occasion that if he tried to stop him speeding he would get what was coming to him. That's a fact having what we call in the trade both evidential and prejudicial value. A judge sitting alone would consider the fact, ignore the prejudicial and take into account the evidential. Jurors are thought to be too stupid to do this, so the fact is kept from them altogether. Result: injustice. If they are too stupid to be able to do what a judge is thought to have no problem with, they are too stupid to decide on anything.
To get a murder conviction there needs to be clear evidence of intent to kill. I'm not sure gobbing off to another cop on another occasion is relevant as to whether they intended to kill PC Harper.
My bigger issue with that case is that we don't do consecutive sentencing like America does. They should have been done for theft of the quad bike and given 10 years for that in addition to whatever they got for manslaughter.
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
Interestingly, the American passport figure has gone up quite a lot since the mid-90s:
You still keep bigging up this neutrality option, but I still don't see how it could possibly work. Leaving aside that promising not to formally align with NATO etc is not a neutral choice if it is done only because they'll be killed if they do not, I don't see what it really gains the Russians either - Ukraine is already not in NATO or the EU but is clearly western aligned now, so other than pettily holding Ukraine back it doesn't achieve anything for Russia in terms of preventing Ukraine from leaving its orbit.
I can see Ukraine agreeing to it, reluctantly, but even though Russia claims to want it it doesn't seem to obtain much.
What it achieves is preventing what's happened in the Balkan States and Poland, with NATO troops right up to the Russian border. Neutrality would mean no Russian, American or other foreign troops there, ever - Ukrainer would be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe. My reading of Putin and Russian public opinion (insofar as we can judge from polls of doubtful validity) is that that's what they really want. Everything else is secondary.
Conversely, Ukraine wants to be in the EU, Western and prosperous. They don't really care about having foreign troops and missiles, except as a deterrent to precisely what's happening now. So part of the deal for them has to be security guarantees that they can rely on - a NATO statement that yes, we'll stay out, but not if Ukraine is violated again. In return the West could gradually wind its sanctions down if the Russians withdraw and the deal holds.
In other words, sooner or later the West will need to play a part in getting a lasting deal.
Russia surely wouldn't regard EU membership as being neutral. What if the EU, rather than NATO, decided to put troops there? So neutrality which does not prevent EU membership would be pointless.
Nor would Russia agree that Ukraine outside of NATO but a defence commitment by NATO is "neutral". And of course commitments by Russia do not last 20 years so we cannot trust them and hope they don't try again after ten years of military reforms and sanctions protections have been built up.
No, what we need is for Russia to withdraw in entirety. For Crimea to be given back so Ukraine cannot be invaded from all sides again. And for Ukraine to be part of the system of collective defence.
I wrote to my MP 9 days ago asking her to urge the government to be more open to Ukrainian refugees. Apart from a standard acknowledgment, I have not had the courtesy of a reply.
Very poor.
Our refugee policy shames us a country but shames the Tory party above all.
What do you expect, there are no animals to prioritise.
Good article on a unit on the Southern front, sounds like the decision to delay mustering really hurt them, some impressive bravery though.
Yes it is, though in the last week, it does look as if Ukranian mobilisation has caught up. Heavy equipment is lacking, but with light antitank weapons all over Ukraine it must be pretty uncomfortable driving anywhere in a Russian tank or APC.
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
When I moved from Birmingham to Ledbury in 1976 I was stunned to find teenagers who had never left Herefordshire.
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
What's sacrosanct about it? It is a ludicrously inefficient bit of nonsense. Look at the Andrew Harper case: very clear evidence of intimidation, wrong outcome, and here's the killer point: one of the killers was on record as saying to a police officer on a previous occasion that if he tried to stop him speeding he would get what was coming to him. That's a fact having what we call in the trade both evidential and prejudicial value. A judge sitting alone would consider the fact, ignore the prejudicial and take into account the evidential. Jurors are thought to be too stupid to do this, so the fact is kept from them altogether. Result: injustice. If they are too stupid to be able to do what a judge is thought to have no problem with, they are too stupid to decide on anything.
To get a murder conviction there needs to be clear evidence of intent to kill. I'm not sure gobbing off to another cop on another occasion is relevant as to whether they intended to kill PC Harper.
My bigger issue with that case is that we don't do consecutive sentencing like America does. They should have been done for theft of the quad bike and given 10 years for that in addition to whatever they got for manslaughter.
Yes. The point is you think you are capable of making that decision, the system thinks juries are not.
You still keep bigging up this neutrality option, but I still don't see how it could possibly work. Leaving aside that promising not to formally align with NATO etc is not a neutral choice if it is done only because they'll be killed if they do not, I don't see what it really gains the Russians either - Ukraine is already not in NATO or the EU but is clearly western aligned now, so other than pettily holding Ukraine back it doesn't achieve anything for Russia in terms of preventing Ukraine from leaving its orbit.
I can see Ukraine agreeing to it, reluctantly, but even though Russia claims to want it it doesn't seem to obtain much.
What it achieves is preventing what's happened in the Balkan States and Poland, with NATO troops right up to the Russian border. Neutrality would mean no Russian, American or other foreign troops there, ever - Ukrainer would be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe. My reading of Putin and Russian public opinion (insofar as we can judge from polls of doubtful validity) is that that's what they really want. Everything else is secondary.
Conversely, Ukraine wants to be in the EU, Western and prosperous. They don't really care about having foreign troops and missiles, except as a deterrent to precisely what's happening now. So part of the deal for them has to be security guarantees that they can rely on - a NATO statement that yes, we'll stay out, but not if Ukraine is violated again. In return the West could gradually wind its sanctions down if the Russians withdraw and the deal holds.
In other words, sooner or later the West will need to play a part in getting a lasting deal.
That might have been possible in the past, though the sort of compromise that would end a Ukranin PMs career, but it is certainly no longer possible. Too much Ukranian blood has been shed now.
This ends only with the fall of Putin. Probably not this week, but likely before the summer. Russia is grinding to an economic halt, and its much vaunted army shown to be both incompetent and psychopathic.
A depressingly possible scenario as far as I can see, as that Ukraine by dint of heroic effort manages to resist invasion and Russian forces generaly withdrawn, but immense pressure if then put on Ukraine to not even seek to take back Donbas or a strip from there to Crimea, even if they have the wherewithal to attempt it. A return to the status quo (albeit not ante bellum, since the preceding invasion was bellum of a kind), with Russia have boosted the Donbas territory a bit, I fear would be taken as enough of a 'loss' for the Russians that immense pressure would be on Ukraine to not take on an aggressor role even to regain its territory.
As the prospect of a red wave grows, a series of Republican missteps including recruiting stumbles, weak fundraising and intense infighting is threatening the GOP’s path to the Senate majority.
Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey dealt his party its latest setback late last week by announcing he would not challenge Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly this fall. His decision, which leaves no obvious front-runner in a crowded Republican primary, disappointed Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his allies who had spent months privately encouraging Ducey to run. . . .
Republican candidates in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are struggling to keep pace with Democratic fundraising. Recruiting failures have dashed GOP hopes in reach states like Maryland and threaten a prime pickup opportunity in New Hampshire. And a recent plan that would raise taxes on low-income Americans and seniors, released by the Republican Senate midterm chief, Florida Sen. Rick Scott, is putting GOP candidates in a difficult position across states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. . . .
Scott, the leader of the GOP’s Senate midterm efforts, released an 11-point plan late last month that would impose a modest tax increase for many of the lowest paid Americans, while opening the door for cutting Social Security and Medicare. The Senate Democrats’ political arm released a radio ad within 24 hours declaring, “If Senate Republicans win, we pay the price.” . . .
The Senate Republican leader forcefully rebuked Scott’s plan during the Republican leadership’s weekly news conference, which Scott was part of.
“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said moments after Scott stepped away from the event. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half of the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.” . . .
In Nevada, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, one of the nation’s most endangered Democrats, reported $10.5 million cash on hand at the end of last year, compared to Republican former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s $1.7 million.
Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock finished the year with $22.9 million in the bank, while likely Republican challenger Herschel Walker, the former football star who has been endorsed by Trump, reported $5.4 million.
And Arizona Democrat Kelly, a former astronaut who won a 2020 special election to serve out the final two years of the late Sen. John McCain’s term, reported $18.6 million in the bank. Arizona’s Republican state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the best-known Republican in a crowded primary field, reported less than $800,000 in the bank. . . .
Its numbers like those that make the Conservatives look even more contemptible for the donations they accept from people they shouldn't.
Under US federal law, campaign contributions from foreigners are prohibited. While politicos of all stripes have occasionally (in some cases deliberately) fallen afoul of the law, it is nevertheless a major disincentive.
So I wonder, why has UK not banned political donations from non-UKers? Would seem an obvious step. Especially IF national sovereignty and independence are truly core values?
It has. You have to be on the UK electoral roll to donate to a political party.
Or own a company registered in the UK.......
Now THAT's an interesting wrinkle! Or rather a huge gap in the fence?
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
I see and respect point you are making. Still doubt you are correct in arguing that Goodwillie can NOT be called a rapist, even though a legal judgement has been rendered that declares him to be exactly that.
Could some of our legal eagles weigh in?
It has been shown on the balance of probabilities that he is a rapist. It has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. It really is that simple. For BRD corroboration is required. There wasn’t any. For BP that Is not required.
Believe me, the test for prosecution for rape is as low as it can be. If there is a “technical sufficiency “ it’s a go. There wasn’t.
To pick one thread out of this tangle (legal, semantic, media code of practice, epistemological etc)
You, Y, say that X is a burglar on the basis that a civil court has has found him so on the civil standard of balance of probabilities. It's a free speech country and you can do so.
X's recourse is to sue you in defamation, which is a civil action, and where once again the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. The pliantiff has to prove.
For Y to succeed he shows that on b of p X is a burglar. Which a civil court has already done. It's a res judicata.
X will have a really uphill struggle.
NB Corroboration in rape is not required in English law. Though it helps. Scots law is different.
So (assuming I'm understanding your last sentence correctly) a criminal conviction in Goodwoodie case would have been (theoretically) possible in England, but NOT in Scotland, due to lack of corroboration?
And (regardless of above) it is legally correct to call Goodwoodie a rapist guilty of committing rape?
1) If there was sufficient evidence in general but not corroborated; yes (unless my hazy Scots law is out of date)
2) It is neither correct nor incorrect. To so describe him makes a statement, one which is prima facie libellous but which you are allowed to say, it being a free speech country, subject to being sued in defamation. (As when the Daily Mail described several young men as killers in a notorious murder case even though they had not been convicted. They never sued).
When it comes to the actual, objective, relationship of words and contestable facts of course God alone knows, and even God is sometimes unsure.
I wrote to my MP 9 days ago asking her to urge the government to be more open to Ukrainian refugees. Apart from a standard acknowledgment, I have not had the courtesy of a reply.
Very poor.
Our refugee policy shames us a country but shames the Tory party above all.
What do you expect, there are no animals to prioritise.
It looks to me that Ukranians are big pet lovers. Lots of refugees with cats and dogs in the pictures.
I wrote to my MP 9 days ago asking her to urge the government to be more open to Ukrainian refugees. Apart from a standard acknowledgment, I have not had the courtesy of a reply.
Very poor.
Our refugee policy shames us a country but shames the Tory party above all.
I believe your mp is that dreadful woman who was Johnson's pps over kabul?
On the one hand, poor foreigners. On the other hand doggies.
I wrote to my MP 9 days ago asking her to urge the government to be more open to Ukrainian refugees. Apart from a standard acknowledgment, I have not had the courtesy of a reply.
Very poor.
Our refugee policy shames us a country but shames the Tory party above all.
What do you expect, there are no animals to prioritise.
It looks to me that Ukranians are big pet lovers. Lots of refugees with cats and dogs in the pictures.
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
I see and respect point you are making. Still doubt you are correct in arguing that Goodwillie can NOT be called a rapist, even though a legal judgement has been rendered that declares him to be exactly that.
Could some of our legal eagles weigh in?
It has been shown on the balance of probabilities that he is a rapist. It has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. It really is that simple. For BRD corroboration is required. There wasn’t any. For BP that Is not required.
Believe me, the test for prosecution for rape is as low as it can be. If there is a “technical sufficiency “ it’s a go. There wasn’t.
To pick one thread out of this tangle (legal, semantic, media code of practice, epistemological etc)
You, Y, say that X is a burglar on the basis that a civil court has has found him so on the civil standard of balance of probabilities. It's a free speech country and you can do so.
X's recourse is to sue you in defamation, which is a civil action, and where once again the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. The pliantiff has to prove.
For Y to succeed he shows that on b of p X is a burglar. Which a civil court has already done. It's a res judicata.
X will have a really uphill struggle.
NB Corroboration in rape is not required in English law. Though it helps. Scots law is different.
Yes but Goodwillie is Scottish. And the question of prosecution was determined by Scots law.
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
According to June 2021 Pew Research Center survey, just 27% of Americans have NOT traveled abroad. Of those, 19% (of total survey) had visited just one foreign country, most likely (IMHO) Canada or Mexico.
When I was a kid back in the 60s, my family took our vacation in Niagara Falls every other year (alternating with Myrtle Beach SC). We enjoyed being in another country and spending it's "funny" money, etc. But spending a few days in Ontario was not nearly as foreign in our eyes, as travelling to Europe would have been.
With all these companies announcing withdrawal or restrictions in Russia I wonder what Ben and Jerry's are up to? I seem to recall far from not commenting on non food related matters their PR was all about commenting on social matters.
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
What's sacrosanct about it? It is a ludicrously inefficient bit of nonsense. Look at the Andrew Harper case: very clear evidence of intimidation, wrong outcome, and here's the killer point: one of the killers was on record as saying to a police officer on a previous occasion that if he tried to stop him speeding he would get what was coming to him. That's a fact having what we call in the trade both evidential and prejudicial value. A judge sitting alone would consider the fact, ignore the prejudicial and take into account the evidential. Jurors are thought to be too stupid to do this, so the fact is kept from them altogether. Result: injustice. If they are too stupid to be able to do what a judge is thought to have no problem with, they are too stupid to decide on anything.
To get a murder conviction there needs to be clear evidence of intent to kill. I'm not sure gobbing off to another cop on another occasion is relevant as to whether they intended to kill PC Harper.
My bigger issue with that case is that we don't do consecutive sentencing like America does. They should have been done for theft of the quad bike and given 10 years for that in addition to whatever they got for manslaughter.
Murder in English law does NOT require an intent to kill (though it helps). It requires at least an intent to commit GBH.
By an interesting piece of logic ATTEMPTED murder requires an intent to kill, and is thus one of the harder of crimes to prove.
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
What's sacrosanct about it? It is a ludicrously inefficient bit of nonsense. Look at the Andrew Harper case: very clear evidence of intimidation, wrong outcome, and here's the killer point: one of the killers was on record as saying to a police officer on a previous occasion that if he tried to stop him speeding he would get what was coming to him. That's a fact having what we call in the trade both evidential and prejudicial value. A judge sitting alone would consider the fact, ignore the prejudicial and take into account the evidential. Jurors are thought to be too stupid to do this, so the fact is kept from them altogether. Result: injustice. If they are too stupid to be able to do what a judge is thought to have no problem with, they are too stupid to decide on anything.
To get a murder conviction there needs to be clear evidence of intent to kill. I'm not sure gobbing off to another cop on another occasion is relevant as to whether they intended to kill PC Harper.
My bigger issue with that case is that we don't do consecutive sentencing like America does. They should have been done for theft of the quad bike and given 10 years for that in addition to whatever they got for manslaughter.
Yes. The point is you think you are capable of making that decision, the system thinks juries are not.
Obviously I'm not a judge, but I would very much agree with the view that no one should come to the opposite conclusion, therefore it shouldn't be admitted as evidence.
Basically, judges get to rule in favour of the defendant when they think it's a slam dunk. And that's fine by me.
I wrote to my MP 9 days ago asking her to urge the government to be more open to Ukrainian refugees. Apart from a standard acknowledgment, I have not had the courtesy of a reply.
Very poor.
Our refugee policy shames us a country but shames the Tory party above all.
What do you expect, there are no animals to prioritise.
It looks to me that Ukranians are big pet lovers. Lots of refugees with cats and dogs in the pictures.
But we have to accept the Ukrainians as well as their pets and that means foreigners
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
What's sacrosanct about it? It is a ludicrously inefficient bit of nonsense. Look at the Andrew Harper case: very clear evidence of intimidation, wrong outcome, and here's the killer point: one of the killers was on record as saying to a police officer on a previous occasion that if he tried to stop him speeding he would get what was coming to him. That's a fact having what we call in the trade both evidential and prejudicial value. A judge sitting alone would consider the fact, ignore the prejudicial and take into account the evidential. Jurors are thought to be too stupid to do this, so the fact is kept from them altogether. Result: injustice. If they are too stupid to be able to do what a judge is thought to have no problem with, they are too stupid to decide on anything.
To get a murder conviction there needs to be clear evidence of intent to kill. I'm not sure gobbing off to another cop on another occasion is relevant as to whether they intended to kill PC Harper.
My bigger issue with that case is that we don't do consecutive sentencing like America does. They should have been done for theft of the quad bike and given 10 years for that in addition to whatever they got for manslaughter.
Murder in English law does NOT require an intent to kill (though it helps). It requires at least an intent to commit GBH.
I had feeling someone might say something like that. But I don't think that changes things in the case of PC Harper.
How many do you think would have gone AWOL? I should think that would quite easy to do in the circumstances. There's also a fair chance that in the event of some sort of military and/or political breakdown, you'd get away with it.
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
According to June 2021 Pew Research Center survey, just 27% of Americans have NOT traveled abroad. Of those, 19% (of total survey) had visited just one foreign country, most likely (IMHO) Canada or Mexico.
When I was a kid back in the 60s, my family took our vacation in Niagara Falls every other year (alternating with Myrtle Beach SC). We enjoyed being in another country and spending it's "funny" money, etc. But spending a few days in Ontario was not nearly as foreign in our eyes, as travelling to Europe would have been.
The news about the Russians recruiting for soldiers in Syria to fight in Ukraine is concerning. Indicates that Russia is prepared to go to extensive lengths to avoid defeat.
This, though, does seem plausible Russia is not interested in occupying Ukraine. It’s interested in destroying it. Destroy its military, destroy its economic future and then head to the negotiating table to impose the most onerous terms.
I wrote to my MP 9 days ago asking her to urge the government to be more open to Ukrainian refugees. Apart from a standard acknowledgment, I have not had the courtesy of a reply.
Very poor.
Our refugee policy shames us a country but shames the Tory party above all.
What do you expect, there are no animals to prioritise.
It looks to me that Ukranians are big pet lovers. Lots of refugees with cats and dogs in the pictures.
But we have to accept the Ukrainians as well as their pets and that means foreigners
Ugh. I know it’s sarcasm but I’m just reminded constantly how woeful Patel has been. I mean - read the room. The world has changed massively.
I was told wait for the actual figures in terms of visas tonight. 50 was bad. 300 isn’t much better.
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
According to June 2021 Pew Research Center survey, just 27% of Americans have NOT traveled abroad. Of those, 19% (of total survey) had visited just one foreign country, most likely (IMHO) Canada or Mexico.
When I was a kid back in the 60s, my family took our vacation in Niagara Falls every other year (alternating with Myrtle Beach SC). We enjoyed being in another country and spending it's "funny" money, etc. But spending a few days in Ontario was not nearly as foreign in our eyes, as travelling to Europe would have been.
You still keep bigging up this neutrality option, but I still don't see how it could possibly work. Leaving aside that promising not to formally align with NATO etc is not a neutral choice if it is done only because they'll be killed if they do not, I don't see what it really gains the Russians either - Ukraine is already not in NATO or the EU but is clearly western aligned now, so other than pettily holding Ukraine back it doesn't achieve anything for Russia in terms of preventing Ukraine from leaving its orbit.
I can see Ukraine agreeing to it, reluctantly, but even though Russia claims to want it it doesn't seem to obtain much.
What it achieves is preventing what's happened in the Balkan States and Poland, with NATO troops right up to the Russian border. Neutrality would mean no Russian, American or other foreign troops there, ever - Ukrainer would be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe. My reading of Putin and Russian public opinion (insofar as we can judge from polls of doubtful validity) is that that's what they really want. Everything else is secondary.
Conversely, Ukraine wants to be in the EU, Western and prosperous. They don't really care about having foreign troops and missiles, except as a deterrent to precisely what's happening now. So part of the deal for them has to be security guarantees that they can rely on - a NATO statement that yes, we'll stay out, but not if Ukraine is violated again. In return the West could gradually wind its sanctions down if the Russians withdraw and the deal holds.
In other words, sooner or later the West will need to play a part in getting a lasting deal.
That might have been possible in the past, though the sort of compromise that would end a Ukranin PMs career, but it is certainly no longer possible. Too much Ukranian blood has been shed now.
This ends only with the fall of Putin. Probably not this week, but likely before the summer. Russia is grinding to an economic halt, and its much vaunted army shown to be both incompetent and psychopathic.
A depressingly possible scenario as far as I can see, as that Ukraine by dint of heroic effort manages to resist invasion and Russian forces generaly withdrawn, but immense pressure if then put on Ukraine to not even seek to take back Donbas or a strip from there to Crimea, even if they have the wherewithal to attempt it. A return to the status quo (albeit not ante bellum, since the preceding invasion was bellum of a kind), with Russia have boosted the Donbas territory a bit, I fear would be taken as enough of a 'loss' for the Russians that immense pressure would be on Ukraine to not take on an aggressor role even to regain its territory.
It would be completely immoral if the West puts that pressure on Ukraine. And we should not remove sanctions on Russia until they have fully restored the territory they committed to in 1991. If international treaties mean anything, we must stick to that principle of upholding the Budapest memorandum. If we do not want to encourage war, we must make sure Russia does not get anything they couldn't have got in 2014. That means the biggest commitments should be regional autonomy for Crimea and the Donbass, and only with a democratic vote after refugees have returned.
The news about the Russians recruiting for soldiers in Syria to fight in Ukraine is concerning. Indicates that Russia is prepared to go to extensive lengths to avoid defeat.
They can keep sending soldiers. Doesn’t change the fact Ukraine is full of determined and resilient citizens, as well as a whole load of modern military tech that’s been showing Russia up
I don't think that's true. That would be an extraordinary proportion of the 125,000 people massed on the borders. Even 10,000 people killed, captured or injured would be very serious attrition.
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
When I moved from Birmingham to Ledbury in 1976 I was stunned to find teenagers who had never left Herefordshire.
(In later life, Leavers, one and all)
I've noticed it here in Winchcombe too - young people who seldom venture outside the county and speak of London as if it were an alien and threatening land. Obviously it's only a few but the surprise is to encounter it at all.
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
According to June 2021 Pew Research Center survey, just 27% of Americans have NOT traveled abroad. Of those, 19% (of total survey) had visited just one foreign country, most likely (IMHO) Canada or Mexico.
When I was a kid back in the 60s, my family took our vacation in Niagara Falls every other year (alternating with Myrtle Beach SC). We enjoyed being in another country and spending it's "funny" money, etc. But spending a few days in Ontario was not nearly as foreign in our eyes, as travelling to Europe would have been.
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
I see and respect point you are making. Still doubt you are correct in arguing that Goodwillie can NOT be called a rapist, even though a legal judgement has been rendered that declares him to be exactly that.
Could some of our legal eagles weigh in?
It has been shown on the balance of probabilities that he is a rapist. It has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. It really is that simple. For BRD corroboration is required. There wasn’t any. For BP that Is not required.
Believe me, the test for prosecution for rape is as low as it can be. If there is a “technical sufficiency “ it’s a go. There wasn’t.
To pick one thread out of this tangle (legal, semantic, media code of practice, epistemological etc)
You, Y, say that X is a burglar on the basis that a civil court has has found him so on the civil standard of balance of probabilities. It's a free speech country and you can do so.
X's recourse is to sue you in defamation, which is a civil action, and where once again the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. The pliantiff has to prove.
For Y to succeed he shows that on b of p X is a burglar. Which a civil court has already done. It's a res judicata.
X will have a really uphill struggle.
NB Corroboration in rape is not required in English law. Though it helps. Scots law is different.
For me, it's more that the statement "X is a burglar" implies "X is a convicted burglar". And on the balance of probabilities, that's a slam dunk win for X.
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
According to June 2021 Pew Research Center survey, just 27% of Americans have NOT traveled abroad. Of those, 19% (of total survey) had visited just one foreign country, most likely (IMHO) Canada or Mexico.
When I was a kid back in the 60s, my family took our vacation in Niagara Falls every other year (alternating with Myrtle Beach SC). We enjoyed being in another country and spending it's "funny" money, etc. But spending a few days in Ontario was not nearly as foreign in our eyes, as travelling to Europe would have been.
A great many of our beaches are not worth going to.
Don't get me wrong, I love a bit of shingle or mud flat as much as the next man, but they'd not as much fun laze about on.
Rock pooling or fossilised for fossils on the Isle of Wight is a pleasure in life that no-one should miss. Much more fun than pickling your liver in the tropics.
"The 72 per cent of Russians who never travel abroad - incidentally, roughly the same proportion of Russians that support Putin - will not be affected [by credit card ban]."
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
Is that figure correct?
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
When I moved from Birmingham to Ledbury in 1976 I was stunned to find teenagers who had never left Herefordshire.
(In later life, Leavers, one and all)
That actually does slightly surprise me given how close it is to the county boundary. I would have thought they would have made it as far as Bromsberrow or particularly Preston Cross once in a while.
You still keep bigging up this neutrality option, but I still don't see how it could possibly work. Leaving aside that promising not to formally align with NATO etc is not a neutral choice if it is done only because they'll be killed if they do not, I don't see what it really gains the Russians either - Ukraine is already not in NATO or the EU but is clearly western aligned now, so other than pettily holding Ukraine back it doesn't achieve anything for Russia in terms of preventing Ukraine from leaving its orbit.
I can see Ukraine agreeing to it, reluctantly, but even though Russia claims to want it it doesn't seem to obtain much.
What it achieves is preventing what's happened in the Balkan States and Poland, with NATO troops right up to the Russian border. Neutrality would mean no Russian, American or other foreign troops there, ever - Ukrainer would be the Switzerland of Eastern Europe. My reading of Putin and Russian public opinion (insofar as we can judge from polls of doubtful validity) is that that's what they really want. Everything else is secondary.
Conversely, Ukraine wants to be in the EU, Western and prosperous. They don't really care about having foreign troops and missiles, except as a deterrent to precisely what's happening now. So part of the deal for them has to be security guarantees that they can rely on - a NATO statement that yes, we'll stay out, but not if Ukraine is violated again. In return the West could gradually wind its sanctions down if the Russians withdraw and the deal holds.
In other words, sooner or later the West will need to play a part in getting a lasting deal.
That might have been possible in the past, though the sort of compromise that would end a Ukranin PMs career, but it is certainly no longer possible. Too much Ukranian blood has been shed now.
This ends only with the fall of Putin. Probably not this week, but likely before the summer. Russia is grinding to an economic halt, and its much vaunted army shown to be both incompetent and psychopathic.
A depressingly possible scenario as far as I can see, as that Ukraine by dint of heroic effort manages to resist invasion and Russian forces generaly withdrawn, but immense pressure if then put on Ukraine to not even seek to take back Donbas or a strip from there to Crimea, even if they have the wherewithal to attempt it. A return to the status quo (albeit not ante bellum, since the preceding invasion was bellum of a kind), with Russia have boosted the Donbas territory a bit, I fear would be taken as enough of a 'loss' for the Russians that immense pressure would be on Ukraine to not take on an aggressor role even to regain its territory.
(I'm going to try that again with fewer spelling errors. I don't usually mind, since I type on my phone and write so many posts I don't manage to proof everything before the 6 minute limit runs out, but even I have limits)
A depressingly possible scenario as far as I can see is that Ukraine by dint of heroic effort manages to resist invasion and Russian forces generally withdraw, but immense pressure is then put on Ukraine to not even seek to take back Donbas or a strip from there to Crimea, even if they have the wherewithal to attempt it. A return to the status quo (albeit not ante bellum, since the preceding invasion was bellum of a kind), with Russia having boosted the Donbas territory a bit, I fear would be taken as enough of a 'loss' for the Russians that immense pressure would be put on Ukraine to not take on an aggressor role even to regain its own territory.
I have to come on here to apologise for inadvertently misleading PB when I posted yesterday that a Ukrainian woman had downed a Russian drone with a jar of gherkins. This was wrong, she downed it with a jar of picked tomatoes.
That might be the best correction since Sky Sports News apologised to David Goodwillie for calling him a racist, they wanted to correct the record and tell the world that David Goodwillie was in fact a rapist.
Which, of course, is also incorrect.
BBC - Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists
'Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."'
“Ruled as rapists” not “rapists”.
Is that a meaningful distinction?
Very much so!
I doubt they’re likely to sue anyone anytime soon, but we should be very careful when talking about such civil cases.
Trial by jury is sacrosanct in my opinion. Best we don’t undermine it.
What's sacrosanct about it? It is a ludicrously inefficient bit of nonsense. Look at the Andrew Harper case: very clear evidence of intimidation, wrong outcome, and here's the killer point: one of the killers was on record as saying to a police officer on a previous occasion that if he tried to stop him speeding he would get what was coming to him. That's a fact having what we call in the trade both evidential and prejudicial value. A judge sitting alone would consider the fact, ignore the prejudicial and take into account the evidential. Jurors are thought to be too stupid to do this, so the fact is kept from them altogether. Result: injustice. If they are too stupid to be able to do what a judge is thought to have no problem with, they are too stupid to decide on anything.
To get a murder conviction there needs to be clear evidence of intent to kill. I'm not sure gobbing off to another cop on another occasion is relevant as to whether they intended to kill PC Harper.
My bigger issue with that case is that we don't do consecutive sentencing like America does. They should have been done for theft of the quad bike and given 10 years for that in addition to whatever they got for manslaughter.
Yes. The point is you think you are capable of making that decision, the system thinks juries are not.
Obviously I'm not a judge, but I would very much agree with the view that no one should come to the opposite conclusion, therefore it shouldn't be admitted as evidence.
Basically, judges get to rule in favour of the defendant when they think it's a slam dunk. And that's fine by me.
That makes no sense. There was no slam dunk either way. A judge sitting alone would not have refused himself, he would have said OK I will give this evidence the weight it deserves. Either juries are clever enough to do the same thing, or they are too stupid to be juries. And if the defendants in the Harper case got manslaughter convictions in a murder case, that isn't a spiffing victory for the jolly British sense of fair play.
Comments
If a truce is somehow miraculously agreed in Ukraine, someone is going to have to pay to rebuild an entire country, and make it once more habitable for millions of refugees
Judging by the photos and videos that will be quite pricey. The Ukrainians will rightly demand that Putin pays. Putin who has just impoverished his own country and sent it into default, perhaps
Then what?
Nika Melkozerova
@NikaMelkozerova
Here is the full video of Ukraine's women-warriors' address to Russians. I am so proud.
https://twitter.com/NikaMelkozerova/status/1500879877741891589
So I wonder, why has UK not banned political donations from non-UKers? Would seem an obvious step. Especially IF national sovereignty and independence are truly core values?
I am not against this type of deal and wouldn't try and stop it, as it is up to the Ukranians to decide what they want to do. But I don't think it would be good news at all.
Interestingly the Russians don't seem to be flooding the internet with pictures of burnt out Ukrainian vehicles or shot down aircraft. Why might that be?
Could some of our legal eagles weigh in?
https://twitter.com/GuyChazan/status/1500543700295987206
Astonishing.
But wasn’t Russia given a chunk of the Donblas basin in return… so they should give that back to Ukraine…
£25 per post, if anyone wants to PM me
This ends only with the fall of Putin. Probably not this week, but likely before the summer. Russia is grinding to an economic halt, and its much vaunted army shown to be both incompetent and psychopathic.
Given the US stance earlier today was that a significant majority of Ukrainian planes are still operable (https://twitter.com/DanLamothe/status/1500906875574968324), and the noticable lack of footage of downed Ukr planes, there likely haven't been that many shot down (sub-20). This tallies with RUSI & others' reports stating that the Russians are reticent to deploy their AA capabilities due to high rates of friendly fire (in Georgia half of Russian airforce losses were due to friendly fire).
As for the last sentence, may I encourage you to touch grass and speak to Ukrainians of your acquaintance and ask their view on the fascist issue (whose party got 3% in the last national elections).
As far as I can tell the problem was with the invoices. They couldn't cope with goods of zero value because it was for humanitarian purposes. Either the customs people got it wrong, which might be the ferry agents because a lot of the checking is outsourced to them, or the shippers missed some form or other. In any case, it wasn't sorted in a timely way.
Also note the issues were on the UK side, not the EU.
Believe me, the test for prosecution for rape is as low as it can be. If there is a “technical sufficiency “ it’s a go. There wasn’t.
'What side you want me to be on?' he replied.
Naturally he won the fight.
Seems a rather telling comment.
Of course likely to be on the high side when it comes to Russian deaths and combat losses.
Over the last 20 years Ukrainians have tended to vote more and more for pro-western candidates in their elections. Given Putin's murderous regime it's hardly a surprise that they would do so. For twenty years Putin has built a repressive lawless state at home and bullied his neighbours abroad with barely a peep from most of Europe. Now we're facing the consequences.
No, what we need is for Russia to withdraw in entirety. For Crimea to be given back so Ukraine cannot be invaded from all sides again. And for Ukraine to be part of the system of collective defence.
I wonder what difference the cold weather may make this week.
These are donations from UK citizens who were born in Russia or from UK companies owned by Russians
Its also clearly meant as propaganda, why would you print you shirts with words written in English?
maybe they were paid or threated to be there?
Has anyone seen any news about Konotop, after the video with the Russian soldier delivering an ultimatum, and the Mayor agreeing with a crowd on defiance?
You, Y, say that X is a burglar on the basis that a civil court has has found him so on the civil standard of balance of probabilities. It's a free speech country and you can do so.
X's recourse is to sue you in defamation, which is a civil action, and where once again the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. The pliantiff has to prove.
For Y to succeed he shows that on b of p X is a burglar. Which a civil court has already done. It's a res judicata.
X will have a really uphill struggle.
NB Corroboration in rape is not required in English law. Though it helps. Scots law is different.
Good article on a unit on the Southern front, sounds like the decision to delay mustering really hurt them, some impressive bravery though.
(As I'm a fair minded sort of a person I'll add: Russians; Go home, and sort this out)
And (regardless of above) it is legally correct to call Goodwoodie a rapist guilty of committing rape?
"The Russia we knew no longer exists."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/07/russias-impending-doom-censorship-sanctions-meant-had-no-choice/
Very poor.
Our refugee policy shames us a country but shames the Tory party above all.
My bigger issue with that case is that we don't do consecutive sentencing like America does. They should have been done for theft of the quad bike and given 10 years for that in addition to whatever they got for manslaughter.
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Telegraph RU reporter.
https://youtu.be/2AGl2M_YB0Q
Right Said Fred, I'm too sexy
How does it compare with the number of Americans who never travel abroad?
Many Americans have never left their state.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42586638
There is a myth, found easily online, that only 10% of Americans have passports.
While that was true in 1994, the figure now is more than 40% - and it grows every year.
I always liked the Jimmy Carr joke:
"Only 10% of Americans have a passport. But people say it like it's a bad thing."
(In later life, Leavers, one and all)
Remember companies are people too…
2) It is neither correct nor incorrect. To so describe him makes a statement, one which is prima facie libellous but which you are allowed to say, it being a free speech country, subject to being sued in defamation. (As when the Daily Mail described several young men as killers in a notorious murder case even though they had not been convicted. They never sued).
When it comes to the actual, objective, relationship of words and contestable facts of course God alone knows, and even God is sometimes unsure.
Andriy Zagorodniuk, former Ukrainian Minister of Defence, thinks Russia has lost 46,000 troops counting dead, prisoners and wounded…
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1500932068309889025
On the one hand, poor foreigners. On the other hand doggies.
When I was a kid back in the 60s, my family took our vacation in Niagara Falls every other year (alternating with Myrtle Beach SC). We enjoyed being in another country and spending it's "funny" money, etc. But spending a few days in Ontario was not nearly as foreign in our eyes, as travelling to Europe would have been.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/12/most-americans-have-traveled-abroad-although-differences-among-demographic-groups-are-large/
By an interesting piece of logic ATTEMPTED murder requires an intent to kill, and is thus one of the harder of crimes to prove.
Basically, judges get to rule in favour of the defendant when they think it's a slam dunk. And that's fine by me.
8% of Britons have never travelled abroad, though 20% have never been on a beach, etc.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4009336/Nearly-quarter-Brits-never-plane-visited-European-capital.html
Russia is not interested in occupying Ukraine. It’s interested in destroying it. Destroy its military, destroy its economic future and then head to the negotiating table to impose the most onerous terms.
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1500808780094660610?cxt=HHwWhICj1cjo-NMpAAAA
I was told wait for the actual figures in terms of visas tonight. 50 was bad. 300 isn’t much better.
Don't get me wrong, I love a bit of shingle or mud flat as much as the next man, but they'd not as much fun laze about on.
A depressingly possible scenario as far as I can see is that Ukraine by dint of heroic effort manages to resist invasion and Russian forces generally withdraw, but immense pressure is then put on Ukraine to not even seek to take back Donbas or a strip from there to Crimea, even if they have the wherewithal to attempt it. A return to the status quo (albeit not ante bellum, since the preceding invasion was bellum of a kind), with Russia having boosted the Donbas territory a bit, I fear would be taken as enough of a 'loss' for the Russians that immense pressure would be put on Ukraine to not take on an aggressor role even to regain its own territory.