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.
"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.
You went out of professional interest, or were you just along for the Ryde?
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.
Yes, that's possible.
The other factor to be considered is that, if the Ukrainians are successful in pushing Russian forces back somewhat, the Russians would likely still have a lot of artillery on the Russian side of the border within range of many Ukrainian towns and cities - including Kharkiv, say. So if the Ukrainian army push the Russians back to the border by Kharkiv, but want to prolong the war to retake the Donbas, the Russians can continue to shell Kharkiv. This then creates a situation where the Ukrainians would want to attack the artillery in Russia.
Now, the Ukrainians have already hit a few targets inside Russia, but things could get a bit more escalatory if there's a temptation for the Ukrainians to create some sort of buffer zone in Russian territory. We're then into the sort of scenario of where the Russian nuclear line is drawn.
Having said that, it sure would make Ukraine's future a lot simpler if they were able to retake Crimea and the Donbas, and be free of Russian occupation.
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.
300 is surely worse given that they’ve had a day to fix it and only managed to find 250 more.
"As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself...
But sending NLAWs while the rest of the world was trying to appease Putin the fascist dictator has definitely won many hearts and minds here. Ukrainians wanted arms to defend their homes and their families, Britain supplied them. It’s black and white as far as many are concerned. When responding to this thread please bear in mind this is not my opinion of him, I have made my own feelings about him perfectly clear for a long time."
While the NLAWs are indisputably Wallace's success, it's built on a bedrock of 8 years of hard graft, training an equipping tens of thousands of Ukrainians surviving through 4 separate defence secretaries (Fallon, the Rt. Hon Dr Sir Gareth Williams KPMG CBE WNKER, Penny '2 months' Mordaunt, and Wallace). If you average out the MoD and Home Office you'd end up with an almost competent department.
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.
Yes, that's possible.
The other factor to be considered is that, if the Ukrainians are successful in pushing Russian forces back somewhat, the Russians would likely still have a lot of artillery on the Russian side of the border within range of many Ukrainian towns and cities - including Kharkiv, say. So if the Ukrainian army push the Russians back to the border by Kharkiv, but want to prolong the war to retake the Donbas, the Russians can continue to shell Kharkiv. This then creates a situation where the Ukrainians would want to attack the artillery in Russia.
Now, the Ukrainians have already hit a few targets inside Russia, but things could get a bit more escalatory if there's a temptation for the Ukrainians to create some sort of buffer zone in Russian territory. We're then into the sort of scenario of where the Russian nuclear line is drawn.
Having said that, it sure would make Ukraine's future a lot simpler if they were able to retake Crimea and the Donbas, and be free of Russian occupation.
Alternatively, cede Crimea and Donbas and that allows NATO to say there are no boundaries in dispute.....and membership.
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.
300 is surely worse given that they’ve had a day to fix it and only managed to find 250 more.
It really is. I couldn’t give a shit about over bureaucratic form filling that Patels implemented thinking that “we want tough immigration controls”
I think the majority of brits can see the situation in Ukraine and apply some common sense to the situation.
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.
"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 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 always thought a better equivalent would be how many Britons have been outside Europe. The US is a continental sized country with just about every possible environment within its borders from sub-tropical to arctic. You kind of have to wonder why Americans would travel outside of the US when there is so much to see in their own country.
If that were true, then the war will be over before Easter. Well before.
Using the central US estimate of 5,000 dead I could see there being up to 30,000 out of action Russians. However we have really low visibility into what state the Russians are in outside of a few areas.
Are there any non-NATO countries that might open a second front against Putin?
China?
They are busy making capital - actual & political - out of the conflict.
Are they?
This isn't that great for China.
I mean, they probably wanted a quick win for Russia, followed by the World basically accepting that Russia had the right to do what they wanted in Ukraine. I.e., a blueprint for Taiwan.
But now they've discovered a few things: (1) the West is a lot more united than they thought, and that would make invading Taiwan a lot harder; (2) defenders with modern weapons have a lot of advantages. And Russia doesn't even have to cross 150 miles of ocean; (3) high commodity prices are bad for China; and (4) an irradiated world is also bad for China.
Now... they have Russia moving onto UnionPay (yay). But overall the war is not good for China. They want a rich, prosperous and quiet West, which leaves them the hegemon in the Far East.
"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 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.
I thought that it was 200,000?
Fwiw we can pretty comfortably say that at least 7,000ish Russians are out of action for the war.
If we halve US estimated dead (5000 -> 2500), Ukrainian declared PoWs (2000 -> 1000), we're already half way there to 7k.
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.
Maybe. Good luck with that argument. And don't tell the Daily Mail or they may have to publish an apology to some men they called murderers.
FWIW for the statement "X is a burglar" to be true requires only that that X is a burglar. Any old 'justified true belief' (good old Plato) is quite sufficient. Lots of people do lots of evils without going near a conviction.
What about "Z is Russian and is a child murderer and baby killer who invades countries on a false claim forcing millions into exile"
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.
That was the Stephen Lawrence case, was it not?
Yes, didn't the Mail think that it was the best way to get a court case of some description? I suspect the Mail were happy that it didn't come to that.
Are there any non-NATO countries that might open a second front against Putin?
Belarus, if rumours of these mutinies turn out to be true.
Belarus is a fascinating domino to fall.
I wonder if we will start seeing insurgents there armed with Javelins and NLAWs. Disrupted supply lines through Belarus would be the obvious next step for Ukrainian special forces.
Apparently there are now 20,000 people who have volatierd to fight, from around the would. (and this will not include people who have made there own way there)
5m20s in he has a slide with where the people come form, by his own admition there has been no official braked down of how many but he has pieced together bits that have been reported some of which may not be accurate.
non the less the UK is by some margin the biggest. 52 nations in total.
Are there any non-NATO countries that might open a second front against Putin?
China?
They are busy making capital - actual & political - out of the conflict.
Are they?
This isn't that great for China.
I mean, they probably wanted a quick win for Russia, followed by the World basically accepting that Russia had the right to do what they wanted in Ukraine. I.e., a blueprint for Taiwan.
But now they've discovered a few things: (1) the West is a lot more united than they thought, and that would make invading Taiwan a lot harder; (2) defenders with modern weapons have a lot of advantages. And Russia doesn't even have to cross 150 miles of ocean; (3) high commodity prices are bad for China; and (4) an irradiated world is also bad for China.
Now... they have Russia moving onto UnionPay (yay). But overall the war is not good for China. They want a rich, prosperous and quiet West, which leaves them the hegemon in the Far East.
Worth noting (3) high commodity prices - especially oil - also terrible for the Indian economy.
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.
Maybe. Good luck with that argument. And don't tell the Daily Mail or they may have to publish an apology to some men they called murderers.
FWIW for the statement "X is a burglar" to be true requires only that that X is a burglar. Any old 'justified true belief' (good old Plato) is quite sufficient. Lots of people do lots of evils without going near a conviction.
What about "Z is Russian and is a child murderer and baby killer who invades countries on a false claim forcing millions into exile"
On your basis I can't say that. But I can.
I honestly have no idea what would happen, but I'm not sure if it would be as simple as the person saying "X is a burglar" to point to the result of another civil case. It might require the whole thing to be gone through again with another judge making a ruling.
If that were true, then the war will be over before Easter. Well before.
Using the central US estimate of 5,000 dead I could see there being up to 30,000 out of action Russians. However we have really low visibility into what state the Russians are in outside of a few areas.
and so do the Russians, according to that FSB "leaked report".
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.
Maybe. Good luck with that argument. And don't tell the Daily Mail or they may have to publish an apology to some men they called murderers.
FWIW for the statement "X is a burglar" to be true requires only that that X is a burglar. Any old 'justified true belief' (good old Plato) is quite sufficient. Lots of people do lots of evils without going near a conviction.
What about "Z is Russian and is a child murderer and baby killer who invades countries on a false claim forcing millions into exile"
On your basis I can't say that. But I can.
I honestly have no idea what would happen, but I'm not sure if it would be as simple as the person saying "X is a burglar" to point to the result of another civil case. It might require the whole thing to be gone through again with another judge making a ruling.
The point of judgements is to bring finality. It is generally an abuse of process to seek to relitigate a matter (res judicata) by a sideways action.
17,700 visas application have been received under the Ukraine Family Scheme since it was launched on friday and 300 visas have been issued so far
So that's 250 visas issued today. Do we know how many applications were processed today?
Did they process 1,000 applications today and reject 750 of them for missing proof of address, etc?
More than 450 Ukrainians arrived into Ireland in the last day, so 250 visas issued is falling further behind even more remote from Ukraine Ireland. And there was the story earlier today that a visa granted doesn't even guarantee entry into the country.
How many senior Russian Military and Political figures is it possible for the West to have contact details for? It must be a good number.
Every senior Military and Political person should be imformed that they are accused of charges of war crimes and genocide, which have been lodged against them in Den Hague.
International task forces will search them out and see that in time they stand trial and judgement for the crimes they are accused of.
Lots of sensible people think a no fly zone is not the way to go, but if anyone could provoke people into thinking it is a good one it is the stop the war coalition - what a bunch of douchbags. As this bloke notes, their statements seem principally focused on it being wrong to help Ukraine defend itself.
It couldn't be more obvious that the Russian withdrawal request is in their on sufference. Can't let anything get in the way of NATO bashing, not even proof NATO is needed.
Even if and when all those UK visa applications are approved and nobody else goes to Ireland, that leaves the UK taking in fewer refugees for the size of the host country (the Uk is about 13 times larger). That's how miserable the UK's response in this part of the crisis has been.
Guess what? If people are desparate to get out of a hellhole, they would rather go somewhere where they don't have to jump through an extra hoop, which is what the UK is currently demanding.
Are there any non-NATO countries that might open a second front against Putin?
Belarus, if rumours of these mutinies turn out to be true.
Belarus is a fascinating domino to fall.
I wonder if we will start seeing insurgents there armed with Javelins and NLAWs. Disrupted supply lines through Belarus would be the obvious next step for Ukrainian special forces.
If Russia wins the war, or succeeds in its aims, presumably Belarus gets to be a Russian puppet state for as long as Putin and his cohorts live. Hard to imagine Lukashenko is thrilled at the prospect, let alone his people, after 20+ years as its autocrat. He likes being a proper head of state, not minor potentate like Kadyrov.
Does anyone have the view the war is going to plan for Russia?
Oh - and deary me Everton. They are going to get relegated
The best explanation I've heard so far (that says it is) is that Putin wants to destroy so much, that there's mass displacement of Ukrainians, to be replaced by Russians (goodness only knows why they'd want to), thus 'solving' the issue.
Are there any non-NATO countries that might open a second front against Putin?
Belarus, if rumours of these mutinies turn out to be true.
Belarus is a fascinating domino to fall.
I wonder if we will start seeing insurgents there armed with Javelins and NLAWs. Disrupted supply lines through Belarus would be the obvious next step for Ukrainian special forces.
Ukraine has amongst its international brigades a unit of Free Belarusians, flying the red and white flag. Perfect for the task.
Does anyone have the view the war is going to plan for Russia?
Oh - and deary me Everton. They are going to get relegated
The best explanation I've heard so far (that says it is) is that Putin wants to destroy so much, that there's mass displacement of Ukrainians, to be replaced by Russians (goodness only knows why they'd want to), thus 'solving' the issue.
Question: Assuming some clear skies, comprehensive satellite imagery and a significant amount of image processing, is it not plausible that NATO and therefore Ukraine know exactly how many Russian vehicles are destroyed, damaged, out of fuel / abandoned?
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.
The Ukrainians seem to be fleeing with their pets and the Poles are letting them in.
So no excuse for Trudi Harrison not to pull her finger out and reply. She's probably waiting for the government to come up with a refugee policy. Did the same with Cummings. Took ages to reply and then regurgitated a govt press release.
Am most unimpressed.
There are quite a few families here who are descendants of Czechs and Jews who fled Stalinism and fascism last time it showed its ugly face. A load of donations was collected last weekend at the local theatre and is on its way east.
Even if and when all those UK visa applications are approved and nobody else goes to Ireland, that leaves the UK taking in fewer refugees for the size of the host country (the Uk is about 13 times larger). That's how miserable the UK's response in this part of the crisis has been.
Guess what? If people are desparate to get out of a hellhole, they would rather go somewhere where they don't have to jump through an extra hoop, which is what the UK is currently demanding.
I am somewhat reminded of when the Government were getting soundly tongue-lashed for the lack of PPE, only to 'cut through all the red tape' and now get lashed at the other end for lack of due diligence and paying over the odds.
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?
Yes, it is a meaningful distinction
Let's play a mindgame. Let's say you, Dr Foxy, are unjustly accused of rape, and you are keen to defend yourself in court, so you can clear yourself of this vile accusation. Not fun being called "a rapist", after all
You have faith in the British jury system and you are confident there is NO WAY the Crown can prove, "beyond all reasonable doubt" that you, Foxy, are a RAPIST
But wait! The Crown realises its case against you is weak, so it drops the case. All good?
No! A civil case is made against you, there is no proper trial, just a hearing, with no jury, and a judge decides "on the balance of probabilities" that YOU, Foxy are A RAPIST. What is the balance of probabilities? Are you 52% rapist, 48% not? A bit like Brexit? Who knows. Who cares! PB has decided
There is no meaningful distinction, in your eyes. So without any jury trial, and any proper criminal procedure, you, Foxy, have become A RAPIST
"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.
Bear in mind this was almost 50 years ago. Why would they need to go to Preston Cross or Bromesberrow? And don't forget Herefordians are not allowed over the Camp to Great Malvern or Worcester. A bus or train to Hereford is as sophisticated a transportation system as some needed. It is true the more adventurous took the bus to Gloucester.
I recall having a pint in the Oak at Much Marcle in the early 90s and overhearing a fellow drinker who had just moved back home to Marcle after years away. So from where had this galavanting traveller returned. New York, Paris, London or Cheltenham? No, Dymock.
Lots of sensible people think a no fly zone is not the way to go, but if anyone could provoke people into thinking it is a good one it is the stop the war coalition - what a bunch of douchbags. As this bloke notes, their statements seem principally focused on it being wrong to help Ukraine defend itself.
It couldn't be more obvious that the Russian withdrawal request is in their on sufference. Can't let anything get in the way of NATO bashing, not even proof NATO is needed.
God, I hate them. I want to do them an inuiry
At this point Stop The War are basically Lord Haw Haw, on Twittah
Question: Assuming some clear skies, comprehensive satellite imagery and a significant amount of image processing, is it not plausible that NATO and therefore Ukraine know exactly how many Russian vehicles are destroyed, damaged, out of fuel / abandoned?
I think there are lots of reasons why it could be hard to tell, but I'm sure they would have a better idea than the Russians seem to have.
Are there any non-NATO countries that might open a second front against Putin?
Belarus, if rumours of these mutinies turn out to be true.
Belarus is a fascinating domino to fall.
I wonder if we will start seeing insurgents there armed with Javelins and NLAWs. Disrupted supply lines through Belarus would be the obvious next step for Ukrainian special forces.
Not only would insurrection in Belarus disrupt Russian supply lines, it may be a country Putin cares more about than Ukraine.
"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:
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.
That's because before 9/11 you only needed a birth certificate and photo ID like a driver's license to cross the US/Canadian border (if you were American or Canadian of course). Now Americans and Canadians need one of a US or Canadian passport, US passport card (which is effectively only valid for the US/Canadian border), some "trusted traveler cards" such as a NEXUS card, or an "enhanced" driver's license which is a DL some US border states and Canadian border provinces issue that verifies their respective citizenship. I happen to have an EDL, not because I go to Canada much, but because I naturalized under the Trump administration and I wanted a proof of US citizenship I could carry in my wallet.
To add, the above is by land or sea only. If you want to fly between the US and Canada you need a full passport.
"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.
Bear in mind this was almost 50 years ago. Why would they need to go to Preston Cross or Bromesberrow? And don't forget Herefordians are not allowed over the Camp to Great Malvern or Worcester. A bus or train to Hereford is as sophisticated a transportation system as some needed. It is true the more adventurous took the bus to Gloucester.
I recall having a pint in the Oak at Much Marcle in the early 90s and overhearing a fellow drinker who had just moved back home to Marcle after years away. So from where had this galavanting traveller returned. New York, Paris, London or Cheltenham? No, Dymock.
Are there any non-NATO countries that might open a second front against Putin?
Belarus, if rumours of these mutinies turn out to be true.
Belarus is a fascinating domino to fall.
I wonder if we will start seeing insurgents there armed with Javelins and NLAWs. Disrupted supply lines through Belarus would be the obvious next step for Ukrainian special forces.
If Russia wins the war, or succeeds in its aims, presumably Belarus gets to be a Russian puppet state for as long as Putin and his cohorts live. Hard to imagine Lukashenko is thrilled at the prospect, let alone his people, after 20+ years as its autocrat. He likes being a proper head of state, not minor potentate like Kadyrov.
In the victory essay all signs pointed towards Belarus being subsumed into fascist Russia.
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?
Yes, it is a meaningful distinction
Let's play a mindgame. Let's say you, Dr Foxy, are unjustly accused of rape, and you are keen to defend yourself in court, so you can clear yourself of this vile accusation. Not fun being called "a rapist", after all
You have faith in the British jury system and you are confident there is NO WAY the Crown can prove, "beyond all reasonable doubt" that you, Foxy, are a RAPIST
But wait! The Crown realises its case against you is weak, so it drops the case. All good?
No! A civil case is made against you, there is no proper trial, just a hearing, with no jury, and a judge decides "on the balance of probabilities" that YOU, Foxy are A RAPIST. What is the balance of probabilities? Are you 52% rapist, 48% not? A bit like Brexit? Who knows. Who cares! PB has decided
There is no meaningful distinction, in your eyes. So without any jury trial, and any proper criminal procedure, you, Foxy, have become A RAPIST
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?
Yes, it is a meaningful distinction
Let's play a mindgame. Let's say you, Dr Foxy, are unjustly accused of rape, and you are keen to defend yourself in court, so you can clear yourself of this vile accusation. Not fun being called "a rapist", after all
You have faith in the British jury system and you are confident there is NO WAY the Crown can prove, "beyond all reasonable doubt" that you, Foxy, are a RAPIST
But wait! The Crown realises its case against you is weak, so it drops the case. All good?
No! A civil case is made against you, there is no proper trial, just a hearing, with no jury, and a judge decides "on the balance of probabilities" that YOU, Foxy are A RAPIST. What is the balance of probabilities? Are you 52% rapist, 48% not? A bit like Brexit? Who knows. Who cares! PB has decided
There is no meaningful distinction, in your eyes. So without any jury trial, and any proper criminal procedure, you, Foxy, have become A RAPIST
"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:
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.
That's because before 9/11 you only needed a birth certificate and photo ID like a driver's license to cross the US/Canadian border (if you were American or Canadian of course). Now Americans and Canadians need one of a US or Canadian passport, US passport card (which is effectively only valid for the US/Canadian border), some "trusted traveler cards" such as a NEXUS card, or an "enhanced" driver's license which is a DL some US border states and Canadian border provinces issue that verifies their respective citizenship. I happen to have an EDL, not because I go to Canada much, but because I naturalized under the Trump administration and I wanted a proof of US citizenship I could carry in my wallet.
To add, the above is by land or sea only. If you want to fly between the US and Canada you need a full passport.
"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.
Lots of sensible people think a no fly zone is not the way to go, but if anyone could provoke people into thinking it is a good one it is the stop the war coalition - what a bunch of douchbags. As this bloke notes, their statements seem principally focused on it being wrong to help Ukraine defend itself.
It couldn't be more obvious that the Russian withdrawal request is in their on sufference. Can't let anything get in the way of NATO bashing, not even proof NATO is needed.
God, I hate them. I want to do them an inuiry
At this point Stop The War are basically Lord Haw Haw, on Twittah
The torturous logic they employ to return to their eternal position is painful. Thank heavens no one significant is backing them now.
Lots of sensible people think a no fly zone is not the way to go, but if anyone could provoke people into thinking it is a good one it is the stop the war coalition - what a bunch of douchbags. As this bloke notes, their statements seem principally focused on it being wrong to help Ukraine defend itself.
It couldn't be more obvious that the Russian withdrawal request is in their on sufference. Can't let anything get in the way of NATO bashing, not even proof NATO is needed.
God, I hate them. I want to do them an inuiry
At this point Stop The War are basically Lord Haw Haw, on Twittah
Actually depending how you read that STW war statement and the punctuation, I reckon it could be read as "Russia to withdraw" and then we carry on campaigning for UKr not to have weapons and we carry on campaing for no expansion of NATO.
Frankly, that's a deal. RU fucks off home and then we sit around and drink tea and argue forthrightly that Ukr should not have too many guns.
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.
"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:
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.
That's because before 9/11 you only needed a birth certificate and photo ID like a driver's license to cross the US/Canadian border (if you were American or Canadian of course). Now Americans and Canadians need one of a US or Canadian passport, US passport card (which is effectively only valid for the US/Canadian border), some "trusted traveler cards" such as a NEXUS card, or an "enhanced" driver's license which is a DL some US border states and Canadian border provinces issue that verifies their respective citizenship. I happen to have an EDL, not because I go to Canada much, but because I naturalized under the Trump administration and I wanted a proof of US citizenship I could carry in my wallet.
To add, the above is by land or sea only. If you want to fly between the US and Canada you need a full passport.
What do they do in Point Bob these days I wonder?
For day-to-day stuff they probably use EDLs I should think. For much of the pandemic it was cut off from the rest of CONUS because the border was closed. IIRC they had to start an emergency ferry service. Hyder, Alaska was in similar bind for a short while before the US and Canada saw sense and decided to treat it as de facto part of Canada for pandemic purposes.
Lots of sensible people think a no fly zone is not the way to go, but if anyone could provoke people into thinking it is a good one it is the stop the war coalition - what a bunch of douchbags. As this bloke notes, their statements seem principally focused on it being wrong to help Ukraine defend itself.
It couldn't be more obvious that the Russian withdrawal request is in their on sufference. Can't let anything get in the way of NATO bashing, not even proof NATO is needed.
God, I hate them. I want to do them an inuiry
At this point Stop The War are basically Lord Haw Haw, on Twittah
Actually depending how you read that STW war statement and the punctuation, I reckon it could be read as "Russia to withdraw" and then we carry on campaigning for UKr not to have weapons and we carry on campaing for no expansion of NATO.
Frankly, that's a deal. RU fucks off home and then we sit around and drink tea and argue forthrightly that Ukr should not have too many guns.
I don't think that reading makes a great deal of sense given both their past history, and that the latter part involves things that happen or would happen concurrent with the invasion - it ends with talk of no fly zones escalating the war, which wouldn't make sense if that part was 'after' a withdrawal.
"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:
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.
That's because before 9/11 you only needed a birth certificate and photo ID like a driver's license to cross the US/Canadian border (if you were American or Canadian of course). Now Americans and Canadians need one of a US or Canadian passport, US passport card (which is effectively only valid for the US/Canadian border), some "trusted traveler cards" such as a NEXUS card, or an "enhanced" driver's license which is a DL some US border states and Canadian border provinces issue that verifies their respective citizenship. I happen to have an EDL, not because I go to Canada much, but because I naturalized under the Trump administration and I wanted a proof of US citizenship I could carry in my wallet.
To add, the above is by land or sea only. If you want to fly between the US and Canada you need a full passport.
Yes. Half century ago when my family traveled to Niagara Falls, Ontario, only need a drivers license (my Dad's) to cross the border.
Cheney administration fucked THAT up, IMHO, by NOT negotiating a binational security zone with Canada after 911.
17,700 visas application have been received under the Ukraine Family Scheme since it was launched on friday and 300 visas have been issued so far
So, 250 per day gives us 1250 in a working week. Thus the 17,700 will be cleared in around three months...best to just settle in the EU.
I expect it will be a lot quicker than that
However quick it is from this point on, it is still bloody embarrassing. Are you not ashamed of your country for behaving in this way. Because I am.
I am not at all impressed, but at the same time we must have some control to ensure genuine Ukrainians are allowed into the UK and of course all genuine applicants should be allowed sanctuary quickly
It is interesting to hear labour are in not in favour of allowing immigration from Ukraine without verification of status
Someone who has previously been reliable pre-invasion reports: "Trusted contacts in Russia are telling that 🇷🇺 Western Military District has lost 1200 officers in 🇺🇦 since the beginning of war. dead + injured + prisoners = 1200 officers" https://twitter.com/VDV_Textbooks/status/1500758281983254528
Russia doesn't have as many NCOs are the west, but you're still looking at maybe a multiplier of 10 to get all ranks losses, add in losses from other military districts and you're up in the 20-30k range.
Question: Assuming some clear skies, comprehensive satellite imagery and a significant amount of image processing, is it not plausible that NATO and therefore Ukraine know exactly how many Russian vehicles are destroyed, damaged, out of fuel / abandoned?
These people, who as far as I know are independent, claim to have identified half of the enemy losses announced by Ukraine from photo evidence, on quite strict criteria
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?
Yes, it is a meaningful distinction
Let's play a mindgame. Let's say you, Dr Foxy, are unjustly accused of rape, and you are keen to defend yourself in court, so you can clear yourself of this vile accusation. Not fun being called "a rapist", after all
You have faith in the British jury system and you are confident there is NO WAY the Crown can prove, "beyond all reasonable doubt" that you, Foxy, are a RAPIST
But wait! The Crown realises its case against you is weak, so it drops the case. All good?
No! A civil case is made against you, there is no proper trial, just a hearing, with no jury, and a judge decides "on the balance of probabilities" that YOU, Foxy are A RAPIST. What is the balance of probabilities? Are you 52% rapist, 48% not? A bit like Brexit? Who knows. Who cares! PB has decided
There is no meaningful distinction, in your eyes. So without any jury trial, and any proper criminal procedure, you, Foxy, have become A RAPIST
17,700 visas application have been received under the Ukraine Family Scheme since it was launched on friday and 300 visas have been issued so far
So, 250 per day gives us 1250 in a working week. Thus the 17,700 will be cleared in around three months...best to just settle in the EU.
I expect it will be a lot quicker than that
However quick it is from this point on, it is still bloody embarrassing. Are you not ashamed of your country for behaving in this way. Because I am.
I am not at all impressed, but at the same time we must have some control to ensure genuine Ukrainians are allowed into the UK and of course all genuine applicants should be allowed sanctuary quickly
It is interesting to hear labour are in not in favour of allowing immigration from Ukraine without verification of status
Verification of status isn’t difficult
Do you have a Ukrainian passport? Are you not a male aged between 18 and 60?
Question: Assuming some clear skies, comprehensive satellite imagery and a significant amount of image processing, is it not plausible that NATO and therefore Ukraine know exactly how many Russian vehicles are destroyed, damaged, out of fuel / abandoned?
Are there any non-NATO countries that might open a second front against Putin?
Belarus, if rumours of these mutinies turn out to be true.
Belarus is a fascinating domino to fall.
I wonder if we will start seeing insurgents there armed with Javelins and NLAWs. Disrupted supply lines through Belarus would be the obvious next step for Ukrainian special forces.
Ukraine has amongst its international brigades a unit of Free Belarusians, flying the red and white flag. Perfect for the task.
I don't know how big, brave or skilled the Free Belarusian Brigade is, but if they infiltrated back in to Belorussia and sabotaged a few railway bridges, that would serisoly mess up the already fragile Russian Logistics.
17,700 visas application have been received under the Ukraine Family Scheme since it was launched on friday and 300 visas have been issued so far
So, 250 per day gives us 1250 in a working week. Thus the 17,700 will be cleared in around three months...best to just settle in the EU.
I expect it will be a lot quicker than that
However quick it is from this point on, it is still bloody embarrassing. Are you not ashamed of your country for behaving in this way. Because I am.
I am not at all impressed, but at the same time we must have some control to ensure genuine Ukrainians are allowed into the UK and of course all genuine applicants should be allowed sanctuary quickly
It is interesting to hear labour are in not in favour of allowing immigration from Ukraine without verification of status
Why must we, when the rest of Europe has decided it doesn't need to?
"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.
Here is your three minutes of seaside calm, in troubled times:
Someone who has previously been reliable pre-invasion reports: "Trusted contacts in Russia are telling that 🇷🇺 Western Military District has lost 1200 officers in 🇺🇦 since the beginning of war. dead + injured + prisoners = 1200 officers" https://twitter.com/VDV_Textbooks/status/1500758281983254528
Russia doesn't have as many NCOs are the west, but you're still looking at maybe a multiplier of 10 to get all ranks losses, add in losses from other military districts and you're up in the 20-30k range.
In that thread it does suggest that the number includes NCOs, which makes it more plausible.
Are there any non-NATO countries that might open a second front against Putin?
China?
They are busy making capital - actual & political - out of the conflict.
Are they?
This isn't that great for China.
I mean, they probably wanted a quick win for Russia, followed by the World basically accepting that Russia had the right to do what they wanted in Ukraine. I.e., a blueprint for Taiwan.
But now they've discovered a few things: (1) the West is a lot more united than they thought, and that would make invading Taiwan a lot harder; (2) defenders with modern weapons have a lot of advantages. And Russia doesn't even have to cross 150 miles of ocean; (3) high commodity prices are bad for China; and (4) an irradiated world is also bad for China.
Now... they have Russia moving onto UnionPay (yay). But overall the war is not good for China. They want a rich, prosperous and quiet West, which leaves them the hegemon in the Far East.
The Chinese are fairly patient. Western sanction mean Russia might have nowhere to turn but them for trade, technology and finance. That might mean cheap Russian commodity prices for them.
A China with a subservient Russian partner might be significantly less vulnerable to western sanctions. And would present huge problems for its enemy India.
If Putin gets deposed, it might be a problem for them; if Putin, or a like minded replacement stays in power, then it’s a opportunity.
Been out the loop parts of today, but has it been confirmed about the attack on the Russian helicopters that took out 30 of them?
There was confirmation that the helicopters were there, and there was a video that purported to show a series of explosions at the airfield from a distance.
Not sure if there's been more since that.
I saw somewhere that there had been the same claim at the same airfield last Friday as well
Comments
Based on this report, am personally NOT buying any Ben & Jerry's for the foreseeable future.
The other factor to be considered is that, if the Ukrainians are successful in pushing Russian forces back somewhat, the Russians would likely still have a lot of artillery on the Russian side of the border within range of many Ukrainian towns and cities - including Kharkiv, say. So if the Ukrainian army push the Russians back to the border by Kharkiv, but want to prolong the war to retake the Donbas, the Russians can continue to shell Kharkiv. This then creates a situation where the Ukrainians would want to attack the artillery in Russia.
Now, the Ukrainians have already hit a few targets inside Russia, but things could get a bit more escalatory if there's a temptation for the Ukrainians to create some sort of buffer zone in Russian territory. We're then into the sort of scenario of where the Russian nuclear line is drawn.
Having said that, it sure would make Ukraine's future a lot simpler if they were able to retake Crimea and the Donbas, and be free of Russian occupation.
After Poroshenko positively gushes about the UK, Oz Katerji corroborates Ben Judah's claim the other day: https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1500933246032437251
"As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself...
But sending NLAWs while the rest of the world was trying to appease Putin the fascist dictator has definitely won many hearts and minds here. Ukrainians wanted arms to defend their homes and their families, Britain supplied them. It’s black and white as far as many are concerned. When responding to this thread please bear in mind this is not my opinion of him, I have made my own feelings about him perfectly clear for a long time."
While the NLAWs are indisputably Wallace's success, it's built on a bedrock of 8 years of hard graft, training an equipping tens of thousands of Ukrainians surviving through 4 separate defence secretaries (Fallon, the Rt. Hon Dr Sir Gareth Williams KPMG CBE WNKER, Penny '2 months' Mordaunt, and Wallace). If you average out the MoD and Home Office you'd end up with an almost competent department.
Alternatively, cede Crimea and Donbas and that allows NATO to say there are no boundaries in dispute.....and membership.
I think the majority of brits can see the situation in Ukraine and apply some common sense to the situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID_eFoIemjU
But I am fairly sure it isn't true. One in five killed, wounded or captured? Pull the other one.
This isn't that great for China.
I mean, they probably wanted a quick win for Russia, followed by the World basically accepting that Russia had the right to do what they wanted in Ukraine. I.e., a blueprint for Taiwan.
But now they've discovered a few things: (1) the West is a lot more united than they thought, and that would make invading Taiwan a lot harder; (2) defenders with modern weapons have a lot of advantages. And Russia doesn't even have to cross 150 miles of ocean; (3) high commodity prices are bad for China; and (4) an irradiated world is also bad for China.
Now... they have Russia moving onto UnionPay (yay). But overall the war is not good for China. They want a rich, prosperous and quiet West, which leaves them the hegemon in the Far East.
17,700 visas application have been received under the Ukraine Family Scheme since it was launched on friday and 300 visas have been issued so far
Fwiw we can pretty comfortably say that at least 7,000ish Russians are out of action for the war.
If we halve US estimated dead (5000 -> 2500), Ukrainian declared PoWs (2000 -> 1000), we're already half way there to 7k.
FWIW for the statement "X is a burglar" to be true requires only that that X is a burglar. Any old 'justified true belief' (good old Plato) is quite sufficient. Lots of people do lots of evils without going near a conviction.
What about "Z is Russian and is a child murderer and baby killer who invades countries on a false claim forcing millions into exile"
On your basis I can't say that. But I can.
I wonder if we will start seeing insurgents there armed with Javelins and NLAWs. Disrupted supply lines through Belarus would be the obvious next step for Ukrainian special forces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY1vZTpk4s4
Apparently there are now 20,000 people who have volatierd to fight, from around the would. (and this will not include people who have made there own way there)
5m20s in he has a slide with where the people come form, by his own admition there has been no official braked down of how many but he has pieced together bits that have been reported some of which may not be accurate.
non the less the UK is by some margin the biggest. 52 nations in total.
UK 6,000
US 3,000
Fr 1,000
Brazil 500
Sweden 400
all others less than that.
I expect the approvals to rise rapidly but if not then Patel must go
#Ukraine: We present some exclusive recent footage from the eyes of the Bayraktar TB2 drone in the hands of the Ukrainian military.
A 9K317 Buk-M2 TELAR, part of the infamous convoy, completely destroyed.
Once cloud cover dissipates we'll get some nice high res imagery of the remnants of the convoy.
Did they process 1,000 applications today and reject 750 of them for missing proof of address, etc?
More than 450 Ukrainians arrived into Ireland in the last day, so 250 visas issued is falling further behind even more remote from Ukraine Ireland. And there was the story earlier today that a visa granted doesn't even guarantee entry into the country.
It's a stain on the country's reputation.
Every senior Military and Political person should be imformed that they are accused of charges of war crimes and genocide, which have been lodged against them in Den Hague.
International task forces will search them out and see that in time they stand trial and judgement for the crimes they are accused of.
Latest email from Stop the War calls for Ukraine not to be armed, and for there not to be sanctions as these "inflame the situation". Basically just a call for Russia to win, accompanied by half-heartedly asking them to withdraw. Here's the text:
https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/1500886096640712711?cxt=HHwWjoC96f38m9QpAAAA
It couldn't be more obvious that the Russian withdrawal request is in their on sufference. Can't let anything get in the way of NATO bashing, not even proof NATO is needed.
Oh - and deary me Everton. They are going to get relegated
Frankly it’s embarrassing
Ireland (population just over 5 million) has taken around 1800 refugees as of Monday morning.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/ireland-prepares-to-welcome-thousands-of-ukrainian-refugees-41420987.html
Even if and when all those UK visa applications are approved and nobody else goes to Ireland, that leaves the UK taking in fewer refugees for the size of the host country (the Uk is about 13 times larger). That's how miserable the UK's response in this part of the crisis has been.
Guess what? If people are desparate to get out of a hellhole, they would rather go somewhere where they don't have to jump through an extra hoop, which is what the UK is currently demanding.
Good night.
So no excuse for Trudi Harrison not to pull her finger out and reply. She's probably waiting for the government to come up with a refugee policy. Did the same with Cummings. Took ages to reply and then regurgitated a govt press release.
Am most unimpressed.
There are quite a few families here who are descendants of Czechs and Jews who fled Stalinism and fascism last time it showed its ugly face. A load of donations was collected last weekend at the local theatre and is on its way east.
Let's play a mindgame. Let's say you, Dr Foxy, are unjustly accused of rape, and you are keen to defend yourself in court, so you can clear yourself of this vile accusation. Not fun being called "a rapist", after all
You have faith in the British jury system and you are confident there is NO WAY the Crown can prove, "beyond all reasonable doubt" that you, Foxy, are a RAPIST
But wait! The Crown realises its case against you is weak, so it drops the case. All good?
No! A civil case is made against you, there is no proper trial, just a hearing, with no jury, and a judge decides "on the balance of probabilities" that YOU, Foxy are A RAPIST. What is the balance of probabilities? Are you 52% rapist, 48% not? A bit like Brexit? Who knows. Who cares! PB has decided
There is no meaningful distinction, in your eyes. So without any jury trial, and any proper criminal procedure, you, Foxy, have become A RAPIST
Enjoy
Which (based on available evidence) would have quickened the pace for them at the Home Office?
I recall having a pint in the Oak at Much Marcle in the early 90s and overhearing a fellow drinker who had just moved back home to Marcle after years away. So from where had this galavanting traveller returned. New York, Paris, London or Cheltenham? No, Dymock.
God, I hate them. I want to do them an inuiry
At this point Stop The War are basically Lord Haw Haw, on Twittah
To add, the above is by land or sea only. If you want to fly between the US and Canada you need a full passport.
Frankly, that's a deal. RU fucks off home and then we sit around and drink tea and argue forthrightly that Ukr should not have too many guns.
https://twitter.com/uaarmy_animals
Cheney administration fucked THAT up, IMHO, by NOT negotiating a binational security zone with Canada after 911.
It is interesting to hear labour are in not in favour of allowing immigration from Ukraine without verification of status
"Trusted contacts in Russia are telling that 🇷🇺 Western Military District has lost 1200 officers in 🇺🇦 since the beginning of war.
dead + injured + prisoners = 1200 officers"
https://twitter.com/VDV_Textbooks/status/1500758281983254528
Russia doesn't have as many NCOs are the west, but you're still looking at maybe a multiplier of 10 to get all ranks losses, add in losses from other military districts and you're up in the 20-30k range.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1
Do you have a Ukrainian passport?
Are you not a male aged between 18 and 60?
What more do we need?
This thread is as finished as Macron's challengers' chances.
It's wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4KkasYlhG8
Western sanction mean Russia might have nowhere to turn but them for trade, technology and finance. That might mean cheap Russian commodity prices for them.
A China with a subservient Russian partner might be significantly less vulnerable to western sanctions. And would present huge problems for its enemy India.
If Putin gets deposed, it might be a problem for them; if Putin, or a like minded replacement stays in power, then it’s a opportunity.