I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
Non NATO Austria and Switzerland are likely your best bets in Europe, both relatively neutral in their comments on the conflict unlike say non NATO Ireland with the Irish government making pro Zelensky comments.
Otherwise Latin America or Africa or India or the Caribbean
Switzerland and Austria are very small, landlocked, surrounded by major military states like France, Germany and Italy and likely to suffer significant fallout, not agriculturally self-sufficient and almost impossible to get out of once there is there's a nuclear conflagration.
Either one would be a prison. Switzerland might even close its borders to foreigners. Neither would have much space for refugees, millions of whom would be fleeing from surrounding countries. Far better to be on the edge of a continent in an agricultural country with a maritime escape route.
Portugal is in NATO, therefore Lisbon and Porto would likely be nuked by Putin, you would need to be in very rural Portugal to have a chance
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
Too many foreign students coming into the UK - Suella Braverman
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been speaking at a Telegraph fringe event at the Tory Party Conference and we've been bringing you some of her key comments here.
In the last hour, she said she thinks "too many students" are coming into the UK who are "frankly propping up substandard courses in inadequate institutions". She said this after claiming "net migration needs to come down".
"I think poor universities are being bankrolled by foreign students and I would really like to see that number come down."
She said the UK was seeing "quite a large number" of foreign students bringing in their family members.
When asked if she feels anything stopping others coming into the country as her parents are from Mauritius and Kenya, she said: "I have no qualms about that".
She added that she "delights" in annoying the left.
Working in such an institution - these students are propping us up, but only because funding has flatlined. Lots of unis would love to focus more on home students, but unless government funds higher education beyond the student loan, the only students unis can squeeze for more money are international ones. Increasing student loans is obviously unpopular, but just funding unis better would be good.
Also, students don't tend to bring family, and if they do stay it is because they've applied to in our current system - otherwise the unis are obligated to make sure they return home.
Does seem an area where the market should decide? If overseas students want to pay top money for substandard courses in inadequate institutions then surely we let them crack on? Competition will mean that only the best courses and institutions survive.
(Our uni has historically sucked somewhat at attracting international students, by the standards of near peer institutions. Maybe we don't offer enough substandard courses... Did however leave us far less exposed to drops in numbers during Covid).
Ha. From my pov, it's market values that has kind of destroyed higher education. Maybe people want bang for their buck and government can't be seen to fund every 18yo education for another three to five years, but the focus on making young people career ready, on earnings after graduating, on all this stuff is just... dire. Like, where will we get our next great poet, great philosophers, great artists if we aren't funding everyone with the opportunity to learn and do these things? Where we did before; only the elite could afford to be Renaissance men...
The benefits of a higher education is a more rounded population - young people who have had the opportunity to mingle with people from across the country, across the world even, and come into contact with different ideas. It eases them into adulthood - a middle ground between being taken care of their parents completely and being expected to go out into the world and survive. And it is also good for people to just learn for the sake of learning, to enjoy their subject, to have the opportunity to get more in depth on topics.
If education pre 16 is just setting up kids with what they need to know as a baseline, HE and FE is that ability to do some self actualisation, to indulge in curiosity which is so important to the individual experience of being human. I don't think it should be mandatory, and I don't disagree with those (like my sister) who preferred to go straight into work and such, but I think the experience is valuable for the individual and society as a whole beyond just "does this make good workers" and "are they making good money after graduating".
I see the PB reactionaries are doing their best to play into Putin's nuclear scare mongering. Not one of them has yet explained to me how, if Putin is so weak he has to back down from a full mobilization announcement he can force through nuclear war.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
But they're not part of Russia, so if he goes MAD he goes MAD. We nuke them back, that's how MAD works.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
If she’s been arrested under suspicion of an indictable offense, then yes, absolutely.
In that situation, you bring someone in to a controlled environment where they can be interviewed alongside their solicitor if they wish (and you always want a solicitor) & that interview recorded according to the PACE guidelines. You do this both for the integrity of the investigation & the safety of everyone involved: the investigating officers, the suspect & their lawyer.
Someones home is a totally inappropriate place to interview someone who is being formally investigated by the state under suspicion of having carried out a criminial offense: There are so many ways that could go horribly wrong for everyone involved.
Yes reading it back it is obvious that she was arrested.
As for the seriousness of swatting, I'm not so sure we should importing US-levels of concern about it. Why for a non-violent offence (in the UK) why couldn't they have invited her for interview at her local nick? Why did they have to get her off the streets that minute?
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
"Nobody can win a war like this" from someone who previously said that we should force Ukraine to surrender given Russia was so certain to win.
Are MPs all idiots after all? I've always said most are actually very able people, but they seem to have no conception of parliamentary support and that the party leaders need to gain support of parliament, including their own side, not just expect it.
Could also be the carbon capture / blue hydrogen programmes getting the chop.
I thought HS2 was a waste of money. However they might as well finish it now. Truss only has to have a short walk from Chequers to the top of Coombe Hill to get a stunning view over the Buckinghamshire countryside and see the very obvious HS2 scar on the land. The environmental damage has been done along with vasts amount of money spent so it might as well be finished.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
Exclusive recording of aliens landing in Siberia, intervening in the current global conflict...
Has anyone been playing Terra Invicta? Nick Palmer described a tabletop game he was involved with recently that has a similar premise. The game even starts in 2022, with the Russian Ukrainian War underway. Problem is it makes my potato of a laptop scream!
You can prevent him from using nukes if you threaten him with retaliation if he does and that should be done to prevent nuclear aggression, not just to defend NATO.
That might work for a sane leader, Putin is not sane at the moment and if he thinks he faces total defeat in Ukraine he has already made clear he would use a tactical nuclear weapon
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Justine Roberts (Mumsnet founder) had armed police at her door at 3am because someone had called claiming to be her & that there was a gunman prowling around the house back in 2015. That’s swatting.
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
True and maybe it will take off maybe it won't. And I see the danger. But atm it's not a thing in the UK. And no one said that the Mumsnet founder was armed themselves.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
The bully can't kill us. He is weak and doesn't have full control of his government. He can't even call up a full mobilization. Those that he needs to carry out his orders value the lives of their families too much.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
"Nobody can win a war like this" from someone who previously said that we should force Ukraine to surrender given Russia was so certain to win.
if you are going to make statements like that then please dig out my quote as I can assure you I have never said that
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
But they're not part of Russia, so if he goes MAD he goes MAD. We nuke them back, that's how MAD works.
Those territories are not part of Russia.
Following the logic its been noted if he claimed London as Russisn territory we would have to vacate it.
It probably has more Russian money and family members of the Putin inner circle than the Donbas.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
"Nobody can win a war like this" from someone who previously said that we should force Ukraine to surrender given Russia was so certain to win.
Russia is a broken reed that pierces the hand that rests on it.
Russia has lost this war, and that has been clear for weeks now.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
It sounds like they were arresting her? Which means they would presumbly have had an arrest warrant.
They wouldn’t have needed a separate warrant to search the premises in that case: An arrest warrant is sufficient to enforce entry to the premises. Once there they are permitted to search the home of the target of an arrest warrant to look for evidence related to the offense & can seize any relevant property.
According to her she asked if they had a warrant, and was told "we don't need a warrant" and he forced his way in, arrested her, and seized her property.
Absolutely if they have a warrant, then fair enough, but if there's no warrant then that is completely unacceptable behaviour and "we didn't beat you up" is not good enough a line to be drawn for how the Police should behave.
I would not trust every detail of her story personally. It contains internal contradictions & she was clearly under a lot of stress.
But it seems that she was read her rights, taken to the station, processed, interviewed & then released. That sounds like an arrest & if so the police had the right to search her home (if that is where she was arrested) and seize any relevant materials.
They don’t need a separate search warrant to do so & it may well be that when she challenged the officer, they may have thought she meant “do you have a search warrant?” to which the straight answer, if she was being arrested, would have been “no, but we don’t need one”.
whether the police did this by their current protocols or not , it seems outlandishly OTT and intrusive for a social media post of some kind to result in this . The law is a bit of a mess in this respect
KiwiFarms is more than just social media. If she’s been posting on KiwiFarms then she’s associating herself with people who are quite happy to dox, swat & carry out all kinds of harrassment, both online & offline, of anyone they think deserves it. Any mistaken identity could lead to you being associated with some nasty stuff, even if you were in fact completely innocent.
For the moment, we only have her side of the story, and I’m sure her lawyer has told her to shut up in very clear terms. It will be up to the police to prove they have a case: Innocent unless & until proven guilty applies.
I see the PB reactionaries are doing their best to play into Putin's nuclear scare mongering. Not one of them has yet explained to me how, if Putin is so weak he has to back down from a full mobilization announcement he can force through nuclear war.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
If she’s been arrested under suspicion of an indictable offense, then yes, absolutely.
In that situation, you bring someone in to a controlled environment where they can be interviewed alongside their solicitor if they wish (and you always want a solicitor) & that interview recorded according to the PACE guidelines. You do this both for the integrity of the investigation & the safety of everyone involved: the investigating officers, the suspect & their lawyer.
Someones home is a totally inappropriate place to interview someone who is being formally investigated by the state under suspicion of having carried out a criminial offense: There are so many ways that could go horribly wrong for everyone involved.
Yes reading it back it is obvious that she was arrested.
As for the seriousness of swatting, I'm not so sure we should importing US-levels of concern about it. Why for a non-violent offence (in the UK) why couldn't they have invited her for interview at her local nick? Why did they have to get her off the streets that minute?
Okay, not swatting. But if someone was following you around in the world, shouting at you wherever you went, and you ask them to stop and tell the police you're being harassed and they continue, that is harassment. That is what happens online - it's just easier to hide your identity, or have multiple identities, or use sock puppets or whatever.
If a poster here, for example, told someone to kill themselves every time they posted, and found their associated twitter and did the same there, or found their facebook or private email and did the same there - that is beyond a moderating issue; that's targeted harassment. If someone had a discord channel where they and their mates got together to organise that, that would be harassment. These are the things people do - it isn't nice, but it happens. Again, I have no idea what this person is accused of; but should they be investigated? The cops seem to think so, and whilst I don't trust their judgement, that is who society thinks is best placed to make that call.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
No, the war is de-escalating, Russia is retreating from the land it has invaded.
No, we don't need to back down here. We have gone from perennial warfare across the continent killing hundreds of millions to over 70 years of stability saying that boundaries on the map are not changed by warfare, ensuring that principle is maintained is absolutely worth any risks.
If we allow warfare to return to this continent by giving anything, even just Crimea, to Russia after this conflict is going to say that warfare works and vastly increase the risk of more wars, and much more chance of nuclear Armageddon.
Putin must lose, in full, and be seen to lose. Only that secures freedom from nuclear Armageddon.
I see the PB reactionaries are doing their best to play into Putin's nuclear scare mongering. Not one of them has yet explained to me how, if Putin is so weak he has to back down from a full mobilization announcement he can force through nuclear war.
I would not like to test it out though
Putin's power has already been tested out. He had all the state TV channels clear their programming and give the time for a major announcement. Then he had to not show up in a humiliating fashion, and couldn't even say how long the delay would be for several hours.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
Yet he annexed Crimea eight years ago, and Crimea *has* been attacked in this war. Yet no MAD response. And some 'real' Russian territory has been attacked as well.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
Seems too absurd to be real. Even if saying something online did rise to level of an offence, couldn't they arrange for you to go to them, if willing? Not exactly an urgent matter.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
The bully can't kill us. He is weak and doesn't have full control of his government. He can't even call up a full mobilization. Those that he needs to carry out his orders value the lives of their families too much.
well i dont want to test that out or get anywhere near it being tested. The only orders to drop nuclear bombs in anger have been carried out without question if you go back to Japan so dont think relying on people disobeying orders in a dicatorship is something we want to get to
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
As HYUFD says: 1- Blockade/isolation. The traditional remedy for those breaking a huge taboo. And way beyond these sanctions; we're talking imposed Juche. 2 - NATO enforces a no-fly zone over Ukraine and NATO personnel head in, carrying out support roles (and medical assistance for those affected). And we make Putin well aware of this. Any attack on any NATO personnel is a tripwire, as before. 3 - Carrier Battle Group heads to the Eastern Med. Ready to take action if necessary.
Those look like sensible steps, with Putin warned that another nuke means NATO go in with full conventional force into Ukraine. And help push him out to the borders of Russia - and no further.
Always a further step for NATO to escalate further.
My understanding is that the Russian military have been given very clear assurances by their US counterparts, that any attempt to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine would result in very grave retribution by NATO. The options include, (a) destroying every Russian airbase in Crimea and in parts of Russia bordering Ukraine and Belarus (b) destruction of the Russian Baltic fleet, (c) thousands of NATO soldiers entering the conflict in Ukraine.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
But they're not part of Russia, so if he goes MAD he goes MAD. We nuke them back, that's how MAD works.
Those territories are not part of Russia.
Putin has since last week said they are and that he is ready to defend them with nuclear weapons.
However none of the territories or indeed Ukraine are in NATO so we are in no obligation to go to war with Russia to defend them
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
You do know what MAD stands for, don't you? Not to say it is not the right response but it would be the destruction of Putin, Russia, you and your family.
You are saying that is the only response to a tactical nuke from Russia. Willingly sacrificing your family (super important) and yourself (less unexpendable).
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
Yet he annexed Crimea eight years ago, and Crimea *has* been attacked in this war. Yet no MAD response. And some 'real' Russian territory has been attacked as well.
We are wasting our time. Those that have a liking to right wing autocratic government just want to protect Putin. They feel they don't need a consistent, logical argument. They just want to throw enough noise into the conversation to scaremonger.
Exclusive recording of aliens landing in Siberia, intervening in the current global conflict...
Has anyone been playing Terra Invicta? Nick Palmer described a tabletop game he was involved with recently that has a similar premise. The game even starts in 2022, with the Russian Ukrainian War underway. Problem is it makes my potato of a laptop scream!
I backed that on kickstarter as it was from the folks who modded Xcom into it's long war version. Looking forward to it though I suck at strategy. Only just managed to get some success with thrones of Britannia.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
No, the war is de-escalating, Russia is retreating from the land it has invaded.
No, we don't need to back down here. We have gone from perennial warfare across the continent killing hundreds of millions to over 70 years of stability saying that boundaries on the map are not changed by warfare, ensuring that principle is maintained is absolutely worth any risks.
If we allow warfare to return to this continent by giving anything, even just Crimea, to Russia after this conflict is going to say that warfare works and vastly increase the risk of more wars, and much more chance of nuclear Armageddon.
Putin must lose, in full, and be seen to lose. Only that secures freedom from nuclear Armageddon.
well we must disagree as i really dont see that is logical or how people work
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Justine Roberts (Mumsnet founder) had armed police at her door at 3am because someone had called claiming to be her & that there was a gunman prowling around the house back in 2015. That’s swatting.
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
True and maybe it will take off maybe it won't. And I see the danger. But atm it's not a thing in the UK. And no one said that the Mumsnet founder was armed themselves.
You appear to not understand how this works.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone says the Mumsnet founder was armed (taking this case). You spin a yarn that gets the police to turn up fully armed, knowing that if the target does anything wrong they risk getting shot. What do you think it feels like if this happens to you?
Remember the guy in Liverpool who was carrying a chair leg & the police shot him, thinking it was a sawn off shotgun in a bag? Yes, the guy was a career criminal (IIRC), so the suspicion wasn’t unwarranted, but he was shot without warning in the street. Same thing could have happened to the Justine Roberts’ au pair if she’d turned up at the door in the wrong clothes holding something that, in the dark by a stressed police officer, might have been misconstrued to be a gun.
That’s the threat of swatting & so far no one has died here, but they have absolutely died in the US, because they opened their front doors and walked out into their own garden & stressed police officers who were already primed to think them a threat opened fire on them.
I thought HS2 was a waste of money. However they might as well finish it now. Truss only has to have a short walk from Chequers to the top of Coombe Hill to get a stunning view over the Buckinghamshire countryside and see the very obvious HS2 scar on the land. The environmental damage has been done along with vasts amount of money spent so it might as well be finished.
Yeah. We seem to be terrible at just getting on and building stuff and surely part of the problem must be that not only do we take forever to decide to do something (spending a ton on studies and preparation along the way) but also a decision taken is still appealable, revokable and undoable, so we spend more on continuing to justify and defend a taken decision and then further throw away all the money we spent before the u-turn.
(It is of course possible to go too far the other way and continue to plough money into losing projects, usually termed the Concorde Fallacy. But at the moment I think our problems are more the other way around.)
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
MAD is a defensive doctrine, not a suicide pact.
Both Russia and "Russia" have already been attacked in Belgorod and Crimea without him laying a finger on any NATO territory, never mind with nuclear weapons.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
You do know what MAD stands for, don't you? Not to say it is not the right response but it would be the destruction of Putin, Russia, you and your family.
You are saying that is the only response to a tactical nuke from Russia. Willingly sacrificing your family (super important) and yourself (less unexpendable).
Yes I do, and yes I am.
Only that will prevent nuclear escalation in the first place.
Nukes aren't there to prevent people from being humiliated, if they were then Nixon would have used them, there is no justification for Putin to start Armageddon today but if he does we must follow through in annihilating Russia and preventing them from launching any further strikes.
And he must know beforehand, that is the price for escalation.
Rebekah Vardy will have to pay around £1.5m to Coleen Rooney in legal fees after losing yet another stage in the “Wagatha Christie” libel trial.
The high court on Tuesday decided that Vardy must pay 90% of Rooney’s court costs, a larger proportion than in many equivalent cases. The judge imposed the punitive charge partly because Vardy deliberately destroyed WhatsApp messages and other evidence relevant to the trial.
As a result Vardy will have to hand over £800,000 immediately to Rooney, with further payments to follow, up to around £1.5m. On top of this, Vardy will have to pay her own legal costs, which could bring her combined bill to well over £3m.
This means that not only did Vardy voluntarily bring a libel case that destroyed her own reputation, she will also have paid millions of pounds for the privilege of being publicly humiliated.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
Yes. The police should have shot her and her whole family. In the interests of health and safety. After all, she *might* be Hans Grubbers younger sister and have the entire of former East German Special Forces in her kitchen planning a terrorist operation. Can't be too careful.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
Seems too absurd to be real. Even if saying something online did rise to level of an offence, couldn't they arrange for you to go to them, if willing? Not exactly an urgent matter.
I would guess that they wanted access to her electronic devices. Hence the arrest at home.
If you do the “please come in for questioning, otherwise we come and arrest you” dance then a suspect has an opportunity to wipe their devices, or accidentally drop them off the back of a ferry.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
It may not be state go away's intention, im sure it isnt, but the way you put it is exactly the Russian stance. Fighting back is unreasonable to them as it means more deaths.
The war is not escalating, it's just more contested.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
The bully can't kill us. He is weak and doesn't have full control of his government. He can't even call up a full mobilization. Those that he needs to carry out his orders value the lives of their families too much.
well i dont want to test that out or get anywhere near it being tested. The only orders to drop nuclear bombs in anger have been carried out without question if you go back to Japan so dont think relying on people disobeying orders in a dicatorship is something we want to get to
You always know an argument is on incredibly weak ground when it's proponents can't give counter arguments and just retreat to "I don't want to risk it!"
In reality, the risk is by giving into non-credible threats in a way that encourages more and more of them to happen in future and to become a staple of foreign policy for dictatorial regimes.
Ministers are actively examining ways to evade legal, environmental and public scrutiny of new oil and gas projects including fracking, the Guardian has learned, sparking a furious reaction from green groups and opposition parties.
Senior staff working on energy projects in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Beis) have been instructed to look into ideas raised by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the business secretary, to escape potential judicial review of policies or public consultation.
An email to officials, seen by the Guardian, sets out that Rees-Mogg, a keen advocate of fracking, had noted that parliamentary legislation is not subject to judicial review, and could potentially be used to speed along new projects.
On the issue of environmental assessments for new projects, the email, written by a senior official who explains that they are relaying Rees-Mogg’s views, says using legislation to entirely remove such assessments would be a “more certain” way to proceed.
Another option raised to water down environmental scrutiny would be to “streamline” requirements from the Health and Safety Executive, with the email noting this “would speed matters up further”.
Rees-Mogg also wanted to know about other ways to accelerate approval for projects without jeopardising international obligations connected to oil and gas, and “asked specifically whether a debate in parliament, for example, counts as a public consultation”, the note added.
Other potential routes to be explored include engagement with the energy industry “to maximise the approach to deregulation”, with the email saying Rees-Mogg believed new projects should not be identified without the agreement of companies behind them.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
You (as the police), first look at what’s been written online, and ask a magistrate for a warrant to discover the identity of the person posting the messages if they also consider them to be harrasment.
Then approach the platform on which the alleged harrasment took place, and ask for their logs.
What you don’t do, is arrest someone without due process, for a non-violent crime where there is no immediate danger to anyone.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
If she’s been arrested under suspicion of an indictable offense, then yes, absolutely.
In that situation, you bring someone in to a controlled environment where they can be interviewed alongside their solicitor if they wish (and you always want a solicitor) & that interview recorded according to the PACE guidelines. You do this both for the integrity of the investigation & the safety of everyone involved: the investigating officers, the suspect & their lawyer.
Someones home is a totally inappropriate place to interview someone who is being formally investigated by the state under suspicion of having carried out a criminial offense: There are so many ways that could go horribly wrong for everyone involved.
Yes reading it back it is obvious that she was arrested.
As for the seriousness of swatting, I'm not so sure we should importing US-levels of concern about it. Why for a non-violent offence (in the UK) why couldn't they have invited her for interview at her local nick? Why did they have to get her off the streets that minute?
Okay, not swatting. But if someone was following you around in the world, shouting at you wherever you went, and you ask them to stop and tell the police you're being harassed and they continue, that is harassment. That is what happens online - it's just easier to hide your identity, or have multiple identities, or use sock puppets or whatever.
If a poster here, for example, told someone to kill themselves every time they posted, and found their associated twitter and did the same there, or found their facebook or private email and did the same there - that is beyond a moderating issue; that's targeted harassment. If someone had a discord channel where they and their mates got together to organise that, that would be harassment. These are the things people do - it isn't nice, but it happens. Again, I have no idea what this person is accused of; but should they be investigated? The cops seem to think so, and whilst I don't trust their judgement, that is who society thinks is best placed to make that call.
I think we're disagreeing only in the apparent over- or well judged-reaction of plod.
From her account she did something online and was (evidently) arrested for it.
If someone on here told someone else to kill themselves every time they posted it should be treated with the utmost seriousness and yes the police should become involved.
But it is an "internet crime" and I would expect a(n at first) calm discussion about it at the person's local nick, them having been invited to attend or whatever the process is. Same for fraud, frankly, or many other very real and very serious offences.
If the flight risk is low and there is no physical danger to people (easier to categorise than emotional damage) then why should it not be conducted short of throwing someone in the cells.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
The bully can't kill us. He is weak and doesn't have full control of his government. He can't even call up a full mobilization. Those that he needs to carry out his orders value the lives of their families too much.
well i dont want to test that out or get anywhere near it being tested. The only orders to drop nuclear bombs in anger have been carried out without question if you go back to Japan so dont think relying on people disobeying orders in a dicatorship is something we want to get to
You always know an argument is on incredibly weak ground when it's proponents can't give counter arguments and just retreat to "I don't want to risk it!"
In reality, the risk is by giving into non-credible threats in a way that encourages more and more of them to happen in future and to become a staple of foreign policy for dictatorial regimes.
ha! well not as weak as making up quotes attributed to me - see below
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
MAD is a defensive doctrine, not a suicide pact.
Both Russia and "Russia" have already been attacked in Belgorod and Crimea without him laying a finger on any NATO territory, never mind with nuclear weapons.
Attacked but not yet defeated and before Putin raised the stakes last week.
If Russia looks set to be driven completely out of the 4 regions it has now claimed there is at least a 50% chance Putin uses a tactical nuke rather than face complete defeat
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Justine Roberts (Mumsnet founder) had armed police at her door at 3am because someone had called claiming to be her & that there was a gunman prowling around the house back in 2015. That’s swatting.
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
True and maybe it will take off maybe it won't. And I see the danger. But atm it's not a thing in the UK. And no one said that the Mumsnet founder was armed themselves.
You appear to not understand how this works.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone says the Mumsnet founder was armed (taking this case). You spin a yarn that gets the police to turn up fully armed, knowing that if the target does anything wrong they risk getting shot. What do you think it feels like if this happens to you?
Remember the guy in Liverpool who was carrying a chair leg & the police shot him, thinking it was a sawn off shotgun in a bag? Yes, the guy was a career criminal (IIRC), so the suspicion wasn’t unwarranted, but he was shot without warning in the street. Same thing could have happened to the Justine Roberts’ au pair if she’d turned up at the door in the wrong clothes holding something that, in the dark by a stressed police officer, might have been misconstrued to be a gun.
That’s the threat of swatting & so far no one has died here, but they have absolutely died in the US, because they opened their front doors and walked out into their own garden & stressed police officers who were already primed to think them a threat opened fire on them.
Yes I understand that quite clearly. As I said, maybe it will become a thing here, maybe not. It at the moment is a bit like people dying trying to put their trousers on. It happens but is thankfully rare.
Plus are we not assuming that she was even doing this. Which sounds pretty illegal but they didn't charge her with anything. Was not perhaps someone doing something similar to her in fact?
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
Working with moderate leavers was pointless given that it was not the moderates who were making any of the decisions. And we have never been a country that said that if you lost you had to shut up and be happy.
I disagreed then and still disagree with the attempts by the Remainers to overturn the result. But I certainly don't extend that to believing they should just stop talking about it nor point up the failures when they occur.
It only wasn't the moderates making the decisions because the former Remainers missed their chance immediately after the referendum. If Cameron had stayed rather than flouncing, it would certainly have helped - but by the time May took office, the former Remainers had vacated the playing field leaving her, and subsequently Boris, having to get through a form of Brexit that satisfied the headbangers because the alternative - overturning the referendum result - was impossible.
May WAS a Remainer. Sadly she turned out to be even more of a hard Brexit nutjob than many of the Leavers.
May never "got" Brexit. She was an anti-immigration xenophobic Remainer, who viewed Brexit solely through the prism of anti-immigration.
One thing that got me to switch from Remain to Leave was a conversation you and I had about trade where you convinced me that we could get better trade deals outside the Customs Union, like the other EEA nations have. Truss who also voted Remain seems to also get that, May did not, she just made it about immigration, immigration, immigration.
Those great trade deals must be lurking just out of sight. The Indians are driving such a hard bargain it makes you wonder what the point is. Japan, Aus and NZ were only good in so far as they won't block our accession to the America-Asia bloc.
Perhaps we could have done a little more digging into the composition of our exports and which markets offer the greatest opportunities for services exporters such as ourselves.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There have been many cases of nuclear armed states suffering military defeats.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
As HYUFD says: 1- Blockade/isolation. The traditional remedy for those breaking a huge taboo. And way beyond these sanctions; we're talking imposed Juche. 2 - NATO enforces a no-fly zone over Ukraine and NATO personnel head in, carrying out support roles (and medical assistance for those affected). And we make Putin well aware of this. Any attack on any NATO personnel is a tripwire, as before. 3 - Carrier Battle Group heads to the Eastern Med. Ready to take action if necessary.
Those look like sensible steps, with Putin warned that another nuke means NATO go in with full conventional force into Ukraine. And help push him out to the borders of Russia - and no further.
Always a further step for NATO to escalate further.
My understanding is that the Russian military have been given very clear assurances by their US counterparts, that any attempt to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine would result in very grave retribution by NATO. The options include, (a) destroying every Russian airbase in Crimea and in parts of Russia bordering Ukraine and Belarus (b) destruction of the Russian Baltic fleet, (c) thousands of NATO soldiers entering the conflict in Ukraine.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
You (as the police), first look at what’s been written online, and ask a magistrate for a warrant to discover the identity of the person posting the messages if they also consider them to be harrasment.
Then approach the platform on which the alleged harrasment took place, and ask for their logs.
What you don’t do, is arrest someone without due process, for a non-violent crime where there is no immediate danger to anyone.
Yeah, that kind of thing will work on Google, or Facebook, or any firm located in the UK (or the EU). It won’t work on KiwiFarms.
It’s entirely plausible to me that the only way to connect this woman with her KF accounts (if they exist) is to grab her devices & go through them to look for digital forensic evidence.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
MAD is a defensive doctrine, not a suicide pact.
Both Russia and "Russia" have already been attacked in Belgorod and Crimea without him laying a finger on any NATO territory, never mind with nuclear weapons.
Attacked but not yet defeated and before Putin raised the stakes last week.
If Russia looks set to be driven completely out of the 4 regions it has now claimed there is at least a 50% chance Putin uses a tactical nuke rather than face complete defeat
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
Tory MPs might as well get rid of Truss now and choose a candidate who commands some credibility. The longer they leave this the worse it’ll become. Might as well try to save some seats
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
MAD is a defensive doctrine, not a suicide pact.
Both Russia and "Russia" have already been attacked in Belgorod and Crimea without him laying a finger on any NATO territory, never mind with nuclear weapons.
Attacked but not yet defeated and before Putin raised the stakes last week.
If Russia looks set to be driven completely out of the 4 regions it has now claimed there is at least a 50% chance Putin uses a tactical nuke rather than face complete defeat
Explain how using a tactical nuke avoids defeat.
As it is a warning shot he is prepared to use more nukes to avoid complete defeat
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
Fair enough, you just have to take the now significant chance we will then be drawn into a nuclear war with Russia too.
Putin sees avoiding defeat in Ukraine as vital now to the survival of himself and his nation. On no count did President Ford see loss in Vietnam as threatening the survival of him and the USA
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
How do you do that without starting WW3? Which can be assumed as undesirable for the purposes of this Beispiel.
As HYUFD says: 1- Blockade/isolation. The traditional remedy for those breaking a huge taboo. And way beyond these sanctions; we're talking imposed Juche. 2 - NATO enforces a no-fly zone over Ukraine and NATO personnel head in, carrying out support roles (and medical assistance for those affected). And we make Putin well aware of this. Any attack on any NATO personnel is a tripwire, as before. 3 - Carrier Battle Group heads to the Eastern Med. Ready to take action if necessary.
Those look like sensible steps, with Putin warned that another nuke means NATO go in with full conventional force into Ukraine. And help push him out to the borders of Russia - and no further.
Always a further step for NATO to escalate further.
My understanding is that the Russian military have been given very clear assurances by their US counterparts, that any attempt to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine would result in very grave retribution by NATO. The options include, (a) destroying every Russian airbase in Crimea and in parts of Russia bordering Ukraine and Belarus (b) destruction of the Russian Baltic fleet, (c) thousands of NATO soldiers entering the conflict in Ukraine.
That's a thread where he uses a lot of words to say nobody has a clue what is going to happen.
That is true - but it does demonstrate that whatever it is they've threatened Putin with in retaliation hasn't been made up in the last couple of days. Which is a minor piece of relief.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
Yes. The police should have shot her and her whole family. In the interests of health and safety. After all, she *might* be Hans Grubbers younger sister and have the entire of former East German Special Forces in her kitchen planning a terrorist operation. Can't be too careful.
Please do not make light of swatting. Someone very nearly had a nasty shock in Peckham the other day when armed police turned up to investigate an "LibDems winning here" poster.
OK @Phil I am making light of it but let's not catastrophise what is as yet a vanishingly low incidence occurrence, dangerous as it can be. Although I do get the evidence angle about it. Would be a shame if that hard drive came to any harm.
Just goes to show me jumping in to Twitter outrages. I have been entreating people all day about not listening to twitter and here I am.
I thought HS2 was a waste of money. However they might as well finish it now. Truss only has to have a short walk from Chequers to the top of Coombe Hill to get a stunning view over the Buckinghamshire countryside and see the very obvious HS2 scar on the land. The environmental damage has been done along with vasts amount of money spent so it might as well be finished.
Yeah. We seem to be terrible at just getting on and building stuff and surely part of the problem must be that not only do we take forever to decide to do something (spending a ton on studies and preparation along the way) but also a decision taken is still appealable, revokable and undoable, so we spend more on continuing to justify and defend a taken decision and then further throw away all the money we spent before the u-turn.
(It is of course possible to go too far the other way and continue to plough money into losing projects, usually termed the Concorde Fallacy. But at the moment I think our problems are more the other way around.)
At least we ended up with Concorde.
In the time it took for the planning enquiry into Heathrow T5, Dubai Airport had designed and build their new Terminal 3. Similar project scope, new buildings on an existing airfield, with access roads.
By the time the third runway at LHR ever arrives, the fourth one wil be needed pretty much immediately.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
MAD is a defensive doctrine, not a suicide pact.
Both Russia and "Russia" have already been attacked in Belgorod and Crimea without him laying a finger on any NATO territory, never mind with nuclear weapons.
Attacked but not yet defeated and before Putin raised the stakes last week.
If Russia looks set to be driven completely out of the 4 regions it has now claimed there is at least a 50% chance Putin uses a tactical nuke rather than face complete defeat
Explain how using a tactical nuke avoids defeat.
As it is a warning shot he is prepared to use more nukes to avoid complete defeat
Which is why we need to warn him we will use the full force of our strategic weaponry to ensure a complete defeat if he escalated to nuclear war.
America was humiliated when it lost the Vietnam War, but America survived and just over a decade later won the Cold War.
Russia needs to accept its defeat in Ukraine with grace and repeat back to Russia. Russia will survive, even if Putin like Nixon ends up humiliated and out of office.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
I am afraid that is dangerous talk and it is never a good idea to leave a country "comprehensively defeated" - even in the non nuclear age it was the recipe for WW2 with Verseilles Treaty etc. When we are wanting to totally defeat a country with the highest amount of nukes on the planet it is absurd to have that as an aim 2
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
MAD is a defensive doctrine, not a suicide pact.
Both Russia and "Russia" have already been attacked in Belgorod and Crimea without him laying a finger on any NATO territory, never mind with nuclear weapons.
Attacked but not yet defeated and before Putin raised the stakes last week.
If Russia looks set to be driven completely out of the 4 regions it has now claimed there is at least a 50% chance Putin uses a tactical nuke rather than face complete defeat
Explain how using a tactical nuke avoids defeat.
As it is a warning shot he is prepared to use more nukes to avoid complete defeat
Which is why we need to warn him we will use the full force of our strategic weaponry to ensure a complete defeat if he escalated to nuclear war.
America was humiliated when it lost the Vietnam War, but America survived and just over a decade later won the Cold War.
Russia needs to accept its defeat in Ukraine with grace and repeat back to Russia. Russia will survive, even if Putin like Nixon ends up humiliated and out of office.
'Russia needs to accept its defeat in Ukraine with grace and repeat back to Russia.'
I am sure Putin will do exactly as you say and be a very good loser
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
Yes. The police should have shot her and her whole family. In the interests of health and safety. After all, she *might* be Hans Grubbers younger sister and have the entire of former East German Special Forces in her kitchen planning a terrorist operation. Can't be too careful.
Please do not make light of swatting. Someone very nearly had a nasty shock in Peckham the other day when armed police turned up to investigate an "LibDems winning here" poster.
OK @Phil I am making light of it but let's not catastrophise what is as yet a vanishingly low incidence occurrence, dangerous as it can be. Although I do get the evidence angle about it. Would be a shame if that hard drive came to any harm.
Just goes to show me jumping in to Twitter outrages. I have been entreating people all day about not listening to twitter and here I am.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
Fair enough, you just have to take the now significant chance we will then be drawn into a nuclear war with Russia too.
Putin sees avoiding defeat in Ukraine as vital now to the survival of himself and his nation. On no count did President Ford see loss in Vietnam as threatening the survival of him and the USA
That's what we pay billions for Trident for.
I hope it doesn't come to it, but if it does, then we must retaliate. No nuclear first strikes allowed without retaliation.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Justine Roberts (Mumsnet founder) had armed police at her door at 3am because someone had called claiming to be her & that there was a gunman prowling around the house back in 2015. That’s swatting.
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
True and maybe it will take off maybe it won't. And I see the danger. But atm it's not a thing in the UK. And no one said that the Mumsnet founder was armed themselves.
You appear to not understand how this works.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone says the Mumsnet founder was armed (taking this case). You spin a yarn that gets the police to turn up fully armed, knowing that if the target does anything wrong they risk getting shot. What do you think it feels like if this happens to you?
Remember the guy in Liverpool who was carrying a chair leg & the police shot him, thinking it was a sawn off shotgun in a bag? Yes, the guy was a career criminal (IIRC), so the suspicion wasn’t unwarranted, but he was shot without warning in the street. Same thing could have happened to the Justine Roberts’ au pair if she’d turned up at the door in the wrong clothes holding something that, in the dark by a stressed police officer, might have been misconstrued to be a gun.
That’s the threat of swatting & so far no one has died here, but they have absolutely died in the US, because they opened their front doors and walked out into their own garden & stressed police officers who were already primed to think them a threat opened fire on them.
Yes I understand that quite clearly. As I said, maybe it will become a thing here, maybe not. It at the moment is a bit like people dying trying to put their trousers on. It happens but is thankfully rare.
Plus are we not assuming that she was even doing this. Which sounds pretty illegal but they didn't charge her with anything. Was not perhaps someone doing something similar to her in fact?
I guess my position is that the kind of "immediate danger" threshold discussed here seems to believe that only in person harassment has that risk - if you're harassing someone online and they're already at risk, suffer depression, etc. then yeah, someone could be in "immediate danger" from that harassment. And if they have reason to believe she is involved in harassment campaigns, the organising of them online via Kiwifarms or 4chan etc, then that could also add to the idea of immediacy.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
I am afraid that is dangerous talk and it is never a good idea to leave a country "comprehensively defeated" - even in the non nuclear age it was the recipe for WW2 with Verseilles Treaty etc. When we are wanting to totally defeat a country with the highest amount of nukes on the planet it is absurd to have that as an aim 2
Germany was defeated far more comprehensively in WW2 than in WW1.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
Russia is losing territory in three of the four oblasts that have supposedly been annexed. Not only has there been no use of a nuclear weapon, there's been no ultimatum to Ukraine that they should stop attacking by a certain deadline or face nuclear attack.
Yes, Putin wants to scare us by waving the nuclear card. But he's only ever done so in a fairly oblique way. He's never made an explicit threat that he would have to back up.
This is because he is almost certainly bluffing. If he makes an explicit threat, with a deadline as a trigger, then it's possible he might not be bluffing. He's using doubt and uncertainty to scare you, because he's not willing to be certain.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
I’m glad there are still a few sane people on here. If there is a full scale nuclear war we all die. Every single person posting here will be dead (with a tiny number of exceptions) and everything will be gone. I’m sorry but that isn’t anything that can happen in the Ukraine that makes a full nuclear war a preferable outcome. Of course that doesn’t mean everyone should just roll over to Russian aggression but if there comes a moment where the choice is real and clear between nuclear Armageddon and non intervention then I sincerely hope our leaders choose non intervention. You can bleat all you want about appeasement and talk about Hitler but it’s not the same equation. The choice in 1939 wasn’t between appeasement or suicide.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
Fair enough, you just have to take the now significant chance we will then be drawn into a nuclear war with Russia too.
Putin sees avoiding defeat in Ukraine as vital now to the survival of himself and his nation. On no count did President Ford see loss in Vietnam as threatening the survival of him and the USA
That's what we pay billions for Trident for.
I hope it doesn't come to it, but if it does, then we must retaliate. No nuclear first strikes allowed without retaliation.
So you now want to deploy Trident to attack Moscow if Putin launches a tactical nuclear weapon in the disputed regions of Ukraine.
When not even a NATO state let alone the UK is directly at risk of Russia invasion or nuclear attack. Trident is a defence of last resort for us, not a method of first attack!
Anyway: the Tory party conference. An event so cracked that Michael Gove can credibly turn up to it and act like it’s on drugs. Gove is doing more gigs than Ed Sheeran at the Birmingham gathering, but Truss’s cabinet is already nearing the “separate limos” stage of a monster band’s implosion. Be advised this is a conclave that a huge number of Conservative members of parliament found simply too distasteful to attend. Which certainly puts things into perspective. I’m trying to picture a Star Wars spinoff in which the rebel alliance was run by Gove and Grant Shapps, and it’s possible even Disney+ wouldn’t make it. Which, again, certainly puts things into perspective. Priti Patel is now spoken of as some kind of grandee. Which certainly takes perspective, and does something absolutely unmentionable with it.
This means that not only did Vardy voluntarily bring a libel case that destroyed her own reputation, she will also have paid millions of pounds for the privilege of being publicly humiliated.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
Seems too absurd to be real. Even if saying something online did rise to level of an offence, couldn't they arrange for you to go to them, if willing? Not exactly an urgent matter.
You don't know what she was 'alleged' to have said, nor whether it happened as she reported it. But it is alarming that people can just think this type of policing of 'speech' is even remotely appropriate or acceptable. But this is the problem with harassment laws. Taken literally they severely curtail human expression. The police have adopted a culture of severely enforcing them where certain groups make complaints. It is an example of how 'woke' thinking has infiltrated institutions (in this case the police) and the 'anti-woke' government are powerless to do anything about it.
Ministers are actively examining ways to evade legal, environmental and public scrutiny of new oil and gas projects including fracking, the Guardian has learned, sparking a furious reaction from green groups and opposition parties.
Senior staff working on energy projects in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Beis) have been instructed to look into ideas raised by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the business secretary, to escape potential judicial review of policies or public consultation.
An email to officials, seen by the Guardian, sets out that Rees-Mogg, a keen advocate of fracking, had noted that parliamentary legislation is not subject to judicial review, and could potentially be used to speed along new projects.
On the issue of environmental assessments for new projects, the email, written by a senior official who explains that they are relaying Rees-Mogg’s views, says using legislation to entirely remove such assessments would be a “more certain” way to proceed.
Another option raised to water down environmental scrutiny would be to “streamline” requirements from the Health and Safety Executive, with the email noting this “would speed matters up further”.
Rees-Mogg also wanted to know about other ways to accelerate approval for projects without jeopardising international obligations connected to oil and gas, and “asked specifically whether a debate in parliament, for example, counts as a public consultation”, the note added.
Other potential routes to be explored include engagement with the energy industry “to maximise the approach to deregulation”, with the email saying Rees-Mogg believed new projects should not be identified without the agreement of companies behind them.
In fairness I have seen others besides him suggest the answer to our building works is give more power over small scale stuff, but really restrict challenge and delay on strategic stuff.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
As someone who has also been frogmarched to a cell before questioning and thinking these exact same things - yes, it sounds like she was treated well.
And if someone is accused of online harassment, how do you investigate the validity of that without questioning someone, or looking into their devices that go online? Like, she may deny saying things, but you would still need to corroborate that.
By questioning her in the cells having hauled her away from her home? Wow that is some view of appropriate police behaviour you have. I mean in my younger, more carefree days I was punched in the face by a policeman for walking along the road which I judged to be fair enough in the circumstances so I get how the police can and are justified in acting in certain situations but if you believe what she said, heavy-handed doesn't seem to scratch at the service for a non-violent suspected crime.
I'm not saying I think this is justified, I'm just saying on the scale of police investigation is still seems the better side of experience. Compared to people I know pushed up against the wall and being stopped and frisked for "matching the description", or protesters being hauled away for peaceful protest.
Like, the people I know who have had awful police experiences don't go back on twitter and describe it in high energy. And this is now a genre of terf internet - the police questioning story, as evidence to their victimisation.
I also don't know the degree to which we should assume a potential suspect of online harassment is equivalent to typical non violent crime, it should be treated like harassment. If someone was outside your house abusing you all the time, that would be quite serious. I don't know the specific claims here, but I have read stories of people being told to commit suicide, having people email their personal emails hundreds of times a day, posting private / identifying information etc. The suspect here is obviously putting her spin on it, and that's her prerogative.
Well I have no idea about the context or even still what she was supposed to have done to whom and why.
But being hauled off to the police cells for a suspected online crime seems hugely excessive to me. If they'd come in with a warrant and found a bunch of online crimes stashed under the stairs that's one thing but (according to her) she was fitted up.
Plus your use of the word "terf" puts me on my guard because, like "gaslighting" and "woke" it is not a term I have bothered to examine as I believe it is in itself meaningless.
And this is me not knowing what "side" you're on.
I agree wholeheartedly with the reducing police powers part. What I disagree with is treating online harassment as if it isn't serious. The suggestion is because it is online, or only speech, or whatever, automatically means it is less serious than if it was in person. Again, I don't know what the exact claims are in regards to this person. But, if this is an investigation into whether this person was involved in "swatting" someone, yeah, that's serious (swatting, for those wondering, is the act of lying to the police and claiming a violent crime is occurring so a swat team gets sent to someone's house, potentially endangering anyone in the house). That's what the recent bruhaha regarding Kiwifarms was all about.
In the US, for example, over the last 3 weeks there have been dozens of false reports of school shootings in local schools, resulting in cops taking action en masse. I was listening to someone describe it happening in Virginia, but there are like 5 states that it has happened in. All organised online, by the looks of it, and potentially a 4chan / Kiwifarm operation. This is what online harassment can look like.
Yep that sounds bad and I don't think online crime is not serious. But it is not necessary to haul someone off the streets to investigate it. Same with fraud, shoplifting, and numerous other offences which routinely see people jailed.
"Swatting" sounds like the offence = wasting police time. That surely isn't a banged up-able offence is it?
Noone's going to get "swatted" in the UK, our police force doesn't operate like that - it's a uniquely American problem tbh.
Justine Roberts (Mumsnet founder) had armed police at her door at 3am because someone had called claiming to be her & that there was a gunman prowling around the house back in 2015. That’s swatting.
Now, UK police don’t generally turn up tooled up & ready to shoot first & ask questions later (fortunately for us) but if armed police turn up at your door thinking there’s an armed individual on the property then I’d say you’re at a significantly higher risk of being shot than if that never happens.
True and maybe it will take off maybe it won't. And I see the danger. But atm it's not a thing in the UK. And no one said that the Mumsnet founder was armed themselves.
You appear to not understand how this works.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone says the Mumsnet founder was armed (taking this case). You spin a yarn that gets the police to turn up fully armed, knowing that if the target does anything wrong they risk getting shot. What do you think it feels like if this happens to you?
Remember the guy in Liverpool who was carrying a chair leg & the police shot him, thinking it was a sawn off shotgun in a bag? Yes, the guy was a career criminal (IIRC), so the suspicion wasn’t unwarranted, but he was shot without warning in the street. Same thing could have happened to the Justine Roberts’ au pair if she’d turned up at the door in the wrong clothes holding something that, in the dark by a stressed police officer, might have been misconstrued to be a gun.
That’s the threat of swatting & so far no one has died here, but they have absolutely died in the US, because they opened their front doors and walked out into their own garden & stressed police officers who were already primed to think them a threat opened fire on them.
Yes I understand that quite clearly. As I said, maybe it will become a thing here, maybe not. It at the moment is a bit like people dying trying to put their trousers on. It happens but is thankfully rare.
Plus are we not assuming that she was even doing this. Which sounds pretty illegal but they didn't charge her with anything. Was not perhaps someone doing something similar to her in fact?
I guess my position is that the kind of "immediate danger" threshold discussed here seems to believe that only in person harassment has that risk - if you're harassing someone online and they're already at risk, suffer depression, etc. then yeah, someone could be in "immediate danger" from that harassment. And if they have reason to believe she is involved in harassment campaigns, the organising of them online via Kiwifarms or 4chan etc, then that could also add to the idea of immediacy.
Trouble with that is is that while it is eminently reasonable as you write it, where do you draw the line.
It is an offence to cause someone harassment, alarm or distress in the real world, however the hell that is determined. If you apply that to the internet then PB might as well close down tomorrow morning.
Tory MPs might as well get rid of Truss now and choose a candidate who commands some credibility. The longer they leave this the worse it’ll become. Might as well try to save some seats
Is there any polling on how the British voter feels about dying to prove a point about something or other over Ukraine? I'm not sure that there is a clear majority in favour of the Bartydammerung option.
Rebekah Vardy will have to pay around £1.5m to Coleen Rooney in legal fees after losing yet another stage in the “Wagatha Christie” libel trial.
The high court on Tuesday decided that Vardy must pay 90% of Rooney’s court costs, a larger proportion than in many equivalent cases. The judge imposed the punitive charge partly because Vardy deliberately destroyed WhatsApp messages and other evidence relevant to the trial.
As a result Vardy will have to hand over £800,000 immediately to Rooney, with further payments to follow, up to around £1.5m. On top of this, Vardy will have to pay her own legal costs, which could bring her combined bill to well over £3m.
This means that not only did Vardy voluntarily bring a libel case that destroyed her own reputation, she will also have paid millions of pounds for the privilege of being publicly humiliated.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
I’m glad there are still a few sane people on here. If there is a full scale nuclear war we all die. Every single person posting here will be dead (with a tiny number of exceptions) and everything will be gone. I’m sorry but that isn’t anything that can happen in the Ukraine that makes a full nuclear war a preferable outcome. Of course that doesn’t mean everyone should just roll over to Russian aggression but if there comes a moment where the choice is real and clear between nuclear Armageddon and non intervention then I sincerely hope our leaders choose non intervention. You can bleat all you want about appeasement and talk about Hitler but it’s not the same equation. The choice in 1939 wasn’t between appeasement or suicide.
If he's prepared to wave them about to get what he wants then at what point do we say - enough?
That doesn't mean starting nuclear Armageddon ourselves but if that's what Putin wants then we cannot stop him. Only his own generals can do that.
I'm afraid this is the world we live in, and one we've lived in since the 60s. It seems a lot of people have forgotten.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
I am afraid that is dangerous talk and it is never a good idea to leave a country "comprehensively defeated" - even in the non nuclear age it was the recipe for WW2 with Verseilles Treaty etc. When we are wanting to totally defeat a country with the highest amount of nukes on the planet it is absurd to have that as an aim 2
Germany was defeated far more comprehensively in WW2 than in WW1.
I'm not sure it was defeated in WW1, hence the term armistice.
Not sure there was much wrong with the Versailles Treaty either. Seemed pretty damned reasonable to me.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
Putin has made clear he is ready to go to MAD if Russia is attacked and he now includes the 4 disputed regions in Russia as per the ceremony last week
He has not said that at all. Listen carefully to the words - he will use weapons systems available to him - but he has said nothing about attacking NATO.
I'm thinking of adding Portugal to my nuclear escape list. Wasn't previously on there because it's a NATO member, but aside from one minor facility near Lisbon and bases on the Azores it doesn't look a hugely target rich environment. Why would Russia bother?
Has all the other advantages: visa-free travel, cheap, agriculturally self-sufficient, clean Westerlies, easy and quick to get to. Would probably fly to Porto, far enough South from the somewhat target richer environment of Spanish Galicia.
trouble is you have to time it right(the move ) - escalation in nuclear war is very quick . Which is why we dont want to get anywhere near that stage !
Exactly, which is why only a severe MAD deterrence is the appropriate threat for any possible nuclear action from Russia.
Lulling Russia into a sense of security that they can get away with using nukes will make it much more likely that they'll use them, which makes escalation then fairly inevitable and greatly increases the risk of escalation to global nuclear war.
"Sanctions" are not the response to nuclear weapons, MAD is, which prevents their use.
I think you are right - personally i think the western world is done for if a nuke of any kind is used . However like it or not , it needs a negotiation and tactical nukes are a card in putins hand , the west shoudl use the threat to offer something in return for not using and start a process of de-escalation . Nobody can win a war like this and at some point it has to be de-escalated by both sides.
The "something" the west should offer Putin is "if you don't use nukes, we won't directly engage in this conflict ourselves" which is what has been done so far.
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
But that is the current position and the war is escalating not de-escalating. Bellicose rhetoric however morally right is dangerous when what at is at stake is the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans.americans and russians . All that culture , all that history gone for the sake of being a bit too stubborn and rigid in wanting to be morally right. Sometimes you need to back down a little to gat a bully to as well (when that bully can kill you)
By 'the war is escalating' do you mean that the Ukrainians are winning? So, the Russian invasion of a sovereign state was not escalation but the Ukrainians driving the invaders out is?
Strange way of looking at it.
well it is escalating isnt it ? Precisely because the russians are being pushed back because the weapons they can use to stop this are therefore coming to the fore ie nukes . I wish we can get over the concept of winning and losing when talking about a nuclear armed state like Russia because there cannot be a loser in this - for the sake of the wider world - sorry that might not be the most moral message or not a "winning " one but diplomacy has to come up with something now that is savign face for all concerned -
There absolutely can and must be a loser in this - and it must be Russia.
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
I am afraid that is dangerous talk and it is never a good idea to leave a country "comprehensively defeated" - even in the non nuclear age it was the recipe for WW2 with Verseilles Treaty etc. When we are wanting to totally defeat a country with the highest amount of nukes on the planet it is absurd to have that as an aim 2
Germany was defeated far more comprehensively in WW2 than in WW1.
And they were racing to get nukes just as we were.
Comments
We can indirectly tool up and train up the Ukrainians to fight for themselves, just as they tooled up the Vietcong to fight the Americans, but we won't use our own soldiers to do the fighting. That is the offer.
De-escalation happens when Russia withdraw from all of Ukraine, which of course includes Crimea, just as the USA had to withdraw from Vietnam.
The benefits of a higher education is a more rounded population - young people who have had the opportunity to mingle with people from across the country, across the world even, and come into contact with different ideas. It eases them into adulthood - a middle ground between being taken care of their parents completely and being expected to go out into the world and survive. And it is also good for people to just learn for the sake of learning, to enjoy their subject, to have the opportunity to get more in depth on topics.
If education pre 16 is just setting up kids with what they need to know as a baseline, HE and FE is that ability to do some self actualisation, to indulge in curiosity which is so important to the individual experience of being human. I don't think it should be mandatory, and I don't disagree with those (like my sister) who preferred to go straight into work and such, but I think the experience is valuable for the individual and society as a whole beyond just "does this make good workers" and "are they making good money after graduating".
Those territories are not part of Russia.
As for the seriousness of swatting, I'm not so sure we should importing US-levels of concern about it. Why for a non-violent offence (in the UK) why couldn't they have invited her for interview at her local nick? Why did they have to get her off the streets that minute?
Russia still hasn't officially decided what the borders of the regions they've 'annexed' will be.
It probably has more Russian money and family members of the Putin inner circle than the Donbas.
Russia has lost this war, and that has been clear for weeks now.
Conservative Gov elected on basis of a manifesto, it’s how democracy works.
People voted in ‘19 on the policy promises we made (and for Boris).
If we don’t want to deliver on the deal, the promises, we need a fresh mandate.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1577295872517341184
https://twitter.com/talktv/status/1577276325634654209
For the moment, we only have her side of the story, and I’m sure her lawyer has told her to shut up in very clear terms. It will be up to the police to prove they have a case: Innocent unless & until proven guilty applies.
If a poster here, for example, told someone to kill themselves every time they posted, and found their associated twitter and did the same there, or found their facebook or private email and did the same there - that is beyond a moderating issue; that's targeted harassment. If someone had a discord channel where they and their mates got together to organise that, that would be harassment. These are the things people do - it isn't nice, but it happens. Again, I have no idea what this person is accused of; but should they be investigated? The cops seem to think so, and whilst I don't trust their judgement, that is who society thinks is best placed to make that call.
No, we don't need to back down here. We have gone from perennial warfare across the continent killing hundreds of millions to over 70 years of stability saying that boundaries on the map are not changed by warfare, ensuring that principle is maintained is absolutely worth any risks.
If we allow warfare to return to this continent by giving anything, even just Crimea, to Russia after this conflict is going to say that warfare works and vastly increase the risk of more wars, and much more chance of nuclear Armageddon.
Putin must lose, in full, and be seen to lose. Only that secures freedom from nuclear Armageddon.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1577023354263203841
However none of the territories or indeed Ukraine are in NATO so we are in no obligation to go to war with Russia to defend them
You are saying that is the only response to a tactical nuke from Russia. Willingly sacrificing your family (super important) and yourself (less unexpendable).
Strange way of looking at it.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone says the Mumsnet founder was armed (taking this case). You spin a yarn that gets the police to turn up fully armed, knowing that if the target does anything wrong they risk getting shot. What do you think it feels like if this happens to you?
Remember the guy in Liverpool who was carrying a chair leg & the police shot him, thinking it was a sawn off shotgun in a bag? Yes, the guy was a career criminal (IIRC), so the suspicion wasn’t unwarranted, but he was shot without warning in the street. Same thing could have happened to the Justine Roberts’ au pair if she’d turned up at the door in the wrong clothes holding something that, in the dark by a stressed police officer, might have been misconstrued to be a gun.
That’s the threat of swatting & so far no one has died here, but they have absolutely died in the US, because they opened their front doors and walked out into their own garden & stressed police officers who were already primed to think them a threat opened fire on them.
Are we getting buyer's remorse from nominal Truss supporters?
What even is the Tory Parliamentary Party? How does it function? And why do we as a country have to suffer its disfunctions en masse?
(It is of course possible to go too far the other way and continue to plough money into losing projects, usually termed the Concorde Fallacy. But at the moment I think our problems are more the other way around.)
Both Russia and "Russia" have already been attacked in Belgorod and Crimea without him laying a finger on any NATO territory, never mind with nuclear weapons.
Only that will prevent nuclear escalation in the first place.
Nukes aren't there to prevent people from being humiliated, if they were then Nixon would have used them, there is no justification for Putin to start Armageddon today but if he does we must follow through in annihilating Russia and preventing them from launching any further strikes.
And he must know beforehand, that is the price for escalation.
Rebekah Vardy will have to pay around £1.5m to Coleen Rooney in legal fees after losing yet another stage in the “Wagatha Christie” libel trial.
The high court on Tuesday decided that Vardy must pay 90% of Rooney’s court costs, a larger proportion than in many equivalent cases. The judge imposed the punitive charge partly because Vardy deliberately destroyed WhatsApp messages and other evidence relevant to the trial.
As a result Vardy will have to hand over £800,000 immediately to Rooney, with further payments to follow, up to around £1.5m. On top of this, Vardy will have to pay her own legal costs, which could bring her combined bill to well over £3m.
This means that not only did Vardy voluntarily bring a libel case that destroyed her own reputation, she will also have paid millions of pounds for the privilege of being publicly humiliated.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/04/rebekah-vardy-to-pay-15m-in-legal-fees-after-losing-wagatha-christie-libel-trial
If you do the “please come in for questioning, otherwise we come and arrest you” dance then a suspect has an opportunity to wipe their devices, or accidentally drop them off the back of a ferry.
The war is not escalating, it's just more contested.
In reality, the risk is by giving into non-credible threats in a way that encourages more and more of them to happen in future and to become a staple of foreign policy for dictatorial regimes.
Ministers are actively examining ways to evade legal, environmental and public scrutiny of new oil and gas projects including fracking, the Guardian has learned, sparking a furious reaction from green groups and opposition parties.
Senior staff working on energy projects in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Beis) have been instructed to look into ideas raised by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the business secretary, to escape potential judicial review of policies or public consultation.
An email to officials, seen by the Guardian, sets out that Rees-Mogg, a keen advocate of fracking, had noted that parliamentary legislation is not subject to judicial review, and could potentially be used to speed along new projects.
On the issue of environmental assessments for new projects, the email, written by a senior official who explains that they are relaying Rees-Mogg’s views, says using legislation to entirely remove such assessments would be a “more certain” way to proceed.
Another option raised to water down environmental scrutiny would be to “streamline” requirements from the Health and Safety Executive, with the email noting this “would speed matters up further”.
Rees-Mogg also wanted to know about other ways to accelerate approval for projects without jeopardising international obligations connected to oil and gas, and “asked specifically whether a debate in parliament, for example, counts as a public consultation”, the note added.
Other potential routes to be explored include engagement with the energy industry “to maximise the approach to deregulation”, with the email saying Rees-Mogg believed new projects should not be identified without the agreement of companies behind them.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/04/jacob-rees-mogg-fracking-email-hse
She should hang her head in shame, were she capable of such an emotion.
Then approach the platform on which the alleged harrasment took place, and ask for their logs.
What you don’t do, is arrest someone without due process, for a non-violent crime where there is no immediate danger to anyone.
From her account she did something online and was (evidently) arrested for it.
If someone on here told someone else to kill themselves every time they posted it should be treated with the utmost seriousness and yes the police should become involved.
But it is an "internet crime" and I would expect a(n at first) calm discussion about it at the person's local nick, them having been invited to attend or whatever the process is. Same for fraud, frankly, or many other very real and very serious offences.
If the flight risk is low and there is no physical danger to people (easier to categorise than emotional damage) then why should it not be conducted short of throwing someone in the cells.
That way being jailed for giving offence lies.
If Russia looks set to be driven completely out of the 4 regions it has now claimed there is at least a 50% chance Putin uses a tactical nuke rather than face complete defeat
Plus are we not assuming that she was even doing this. Which sounds pretty illegal but they didn't charge her with anything. Was not perhaps someone doing something similar to her in fact?
Perhaps we could have done a little more digging into the composition of our exports and which markets offer the greatest opportunities for services exporters such as ourselves.
Iron ore and coal exporters, we are not.
It’s entirely plausible to me that the only way to connect this woman with her KF accounts (if they exist) is to grab her devices & go through them to look for digital forensic evidence.
This /is/ the appropriate due process.
https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1577272043036286976?s=20&t=cvYosI5pjSjiTWXqlwjx3g
The fact that Russia has nukes no more means they can't be a loser, than it meant that the USA couldn't lose in Vietnam.
That is not what nukes mean. Ukraine must prevail, Russia must be comprehensively defeated.
Putin sees avoiding defeat in Ukraine as vital now to the survival of himself and his nation. On no count did President Ford see loss in Vietnam as threatening the survival of him and the USA
Which is a minor piece of relief.
OK @Phil I am making light of it but let's not catastrophise what is as yet a vanishingly low incidence occurrence, dangerous as it can be. Although I do get the evidence angle about it. Would be a shame if that hard drive came to any harm.
Just goes to show me jumping in to Twitter outrages. I have been entreating people all day about not listening to twitter and here I am.
Still no idea what Kiwifarms is, that said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
In the time it took for the planning enquiry into Heathrow T5, Dubai Airport had designed and build their new Terminal 3. Similar project scope, new buildings on an existing airfield, with access roads.
By the time the third runway at LHR ever arrives, the fourth one wil be needed pretty much immediately.
America was humiliated when it lost the Vietnam War, but America survived and just over a decade later won the Cold War.
Russia needs to accept its defeat in Ukraine with grace and repeat back to Russia. Russia will survive, even if Putin like Nixon ends up humiliated and out of office.
2
I am sure Putin will do exactly as you say and be a very good loser
I hope it doesn't come to it, but if it does, then we must retaliate. No nuclear first strikes allowed without retaliation.
Yes, Putin wants to scare us by waving the nuclear card. But he's only ever done so in a fairly oblique way. He's never made an explicit threat that he would have to back up.
This is because he is almost certainly bluffing. If he makes an explicit threat, with a deadline as a trigger, then it's possible he might not be bluffing. He's using doubt and uncertainty to scare you, because he's not willing to be certain.
When not even a NATO state let alone the UK is directly at risk of Russia invasion or nuclear attack. Trident is a defence of last resort for us, not a method of first attack!
Liz Truss has been taking notes...
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1577304418311184384
Tectonic...
It is an offence to cause someone harassment, alarm or distress in the real world, however the hell that is determined. If you apply that to the internet then PB might as well close down tomorrow morning.
@Phil?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/04/kwasi-kwarteng-fiscal-plan-date-thrown-into-confusion
Since the election of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, British public life has become increasingly deranged, it is now in full syphillitic raving mode.
That doesn't mean starting nuclear Armageddon ourselves but if that's what Putin wants then we cannot stop him. Only his own generals can do that.
I'm afraid this is the world we live in, and one we've lived in since the 60s. It seems a lot of people have forgotten.
Not sure there was much wrong with the Versailles Treaty either. Seemed pretty damned reasonable to me.