"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
Starmer has been poor. It's not entirely his doing. Managing Trump and Vance has been like herding cats. His simpering hand-wringing performance on Thursday could have gone worse. Indeed by the following day it had.
Many of us are disappointed he can't bring himself to say Trump and Vance are a pair of ****s, and Trump can shove the invite from the King up his diapered ar**. To be fair that is exactly what Jenrick and today Kemi have said. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Johnson to declare the same.
But that seems to achieve nothing with Trump.
We would probably be looking at the same 25% tariffs as the E.U, and no input into the Zelensky-Trump relationship that he is having.
I was hearing today we are likely to get the tariffs anyway. Vance hates Starmer and Britain. Musk despises Starmer. Starmer is whoring the nation for nothing.
If he and Mandelson get the minerals deal back on, as they may do, they won't be.
He's also making himself more indispensable to Macron, Merz, and Trump.
The "minerals deal" has the hallmarks of a New York Mafia style protection racket.
Except the minerals deal may be utterly worthless, given it's all based on a few Soviet era geological reports.
Wait this is based on that?! Lol, Putin is running rings around the Americans right now. It's shameful.
Even if there are lots of useful minerals under Ukranian soil, there are plenty of sources that are a) better mapped and b) less likely to be in a war zone over the next few years. And lithium is pretty cheap right now.
What I don't know is whether Soviet-era geological mapping was any good. But the key thing is that, just because stuff is under the ground, it doesn't automatically mean that it's sensible to remove it from the ground.
Soviet geologists in the oil and gas sector were pretty good. No reason to doubt they wouldn't be pretty handy at finding minerals too.
Hmmm:
I'm not sure that's quite true. The Soviets were very good at finding oil and gas when they found obvious surface oil leaks. I would point out that the abiogenic theory of oil was much believed in Soviet Russia, and that turned out to be complete baloney.
I worked with a chap who did a deep dive into the Soviet oil and gas industry. He spoke Russian and even learnt Soviet style accounting to understand the books.
After disentangling multiple layers of lies he came to the conclusion that the Soviet oil and gas operations in Central Asia consumed more resources than they produced, from about 1960 onwards.
Yes, the Soviets managed to make an effective loss on fossil fuels. They would have been better off not bothering and buying the oil from abroad.
Same reasons that Soviet agriculture was a failure. In the Black Soil country. Demented levels of inefficiency.
Wait! That was a thing? I thought it was just a fairy story you told the kids growing up?
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.
As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.
Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.
The government has the capability to deal with more than one threat at a time.
In the case of Russia there is a unique opportunity - they are an aggressively hostile country that engages in state backed cyberattacks and assassinations on British soil. But they are overcommitted and pinned down in Ukraine. Bluntly speaking, we can wear down their resources without commiting our own troops. That’s been British policy for centuries - of you looked at all the European alliances we typically provide money and material and let the Europeans do the dying
I used to be of the view that there was very little mixing in ye olden days; people tended to live where they were born.
Over the years my view has changed, as I've read more and more about it. Yes, many in rural villages never moved. But many, many did. If you were the fifth son of a tenant farmer, you were not going to inherit anything, so you had to find another occupation, perhaps somewhere else. If you were a trader, you would often need to travel. Ditto the massive Medieval trade in shipping. Then there was religion: and not just people going on pilgrimages. And war: men traveling to support their king or lord. Or just the need to go to the nearest town to pick up a new hoe or implement the village blacksmith could not make. Or even just to view the latest fashion, or attend the town fair. People might also be banished from the village, or have such a big falling-out they feel the need to leave. Or, as now, people might just want to travel, to know what is over the next hill. Famine and war also caused massive population movements, and not just of armies. And as now, people tend to be freer with their play than when at home.
And in towns or cities, the movement and mixing was probably much greater.
Then there is the little-spoken about (or written about...) prostitution and rape. We are all going on about whether we have common ancestors; we all certainly will be, to a small extent, bastards. Or even the product of rape, somewhere down our lineage.
A couple of weeks ago I saw 3 "Wandergesellen" (I guess you'd translate it as 'journeymen' thought the tradition died out much earlier in Britain) walking down the street. It used to be a requirement (for many guilds) after completing an apprenticeship, to do a few (usually 3) "Wanderjahre" before you could become a master craftsman.
They are a fairly rare sight nowadays. Apparently around 450 in Germany - it's supported as a cultural tradition.
I used to be of the view that there was very little mixing in ye olden days; people tended to live where they were born.
Over the years my view has changed, as I've read more and more about it. Yes, many in rural villages never moved. But many, many did. If you were the fifth son of a tenant farmer, you were not going to inherit anything, so you had to find another occupation, perhaps somewhere else. If you were a trader, you would often need to travel. Ditto the massive Medieval trade in shipping. Then there was religion: and not just people going on pilgrimages. And war: men traveling to support their king or lord. Or just the need to go to the nearest town to pick up a new hoe or implement the village blacksmith could not make. Or even just to view the latest fashion, or attend the town fair. People might also be banished from the village, or have such a big falling-out they feel the need to leave. Or, as now, people might just want to travel, to know what is over the next hill. Famine and war also caused massive population movements, and not just of armies. And as now, people tend to be freer with their play than when at home.
And in towns or cities, the movement and mixing was probably much greater.
Then there is the little-spoken about (or written about...) prostitution and rape. We are all going on about whether we have common ancestors; we all certainly will be, to a small extent, bastards. Or even the product of rape, somewhere down our lineage.
A couple of weeks ago I saw 3 "Wandergesellen" (I guess you'd translate it as 'journeymen' thought the tradition died out much earlier in Britain) walking down the street. It used to be a requirement (for many guilds) after completing an apprenticeship, to do a few (usually 3) "Wanderjahre" before you could become a master craftsman.
They are a fairly rare sight nowadays. Apparently around 450 in Germany - it's supported as a cultural tradition.
I used to be of the view that there was very little mixing in ye olden days; people tended to live where they were born.
Over the years my view has changed, as I've read more and more about it. Yes, many in rural villages never moved. But many, many did. If you were the fifth son of a tenant farmer, you were not going to inherit anything, so you had to find another occupation, perhaps somewhere else. If you were a trader, you would often need to travel. Ditto the massive Medieval trade in shipping. Then there was religion: and not just people going on pilgrimages. And war: men traveling to support their king or lord. Or just the need to go to the nearest town to pick up a new hoe or implement the village blacksmith could not make. Or even just to view the latest fashion, or attend the town fair. People might also be banished from the village, or have such a big falling-out they feel the need to leave. Or, as now, people might just want to travel, to know what is over the next hill. Famine and war also caused massive population movements, and not just of armies. And as now, people tend to be freer with their play than when at home.
And in towns or cities, the movement and mixing was probably much greater.
Then there is the little-spoken about (or written about...) prostitution and rape. We are all going on about whether we have common ancestors; we all certainly will be, to a small extent, bastards. Or even the product of rape, somewhere down our lineage.
A couple of weeks ago I saw 3 "Wandergesellen" (I guess you'd translate it as 'journeymen' thought the tradition died out much earlier in Britain) walking down the street. It used to be a requirement (for many guilds) after completing an apprenticeship, to do a few (usually 3) "Wanderjahre" before you could become a master craftsman.
They are a fairly rare sight nowadays. Apparently around 450 in Germany - it's supported as a cultural tradition.
It claims 800 active now, though I'm not sure if that is Germany only.
You can easily recognise them by the uniforms they have to wear (pictures in article).
"At the beginning of the journey, the wanderer takes only a small, fixed sum of money with him (exactly five Deutsche Marks was common, now five euros); at its end, he should come home with exactly the same sum of money in his pocket. Thus, he is supposed neither to squander money nor to store up any riches during the journey, which should be undertaken only for the experience."
"Robert Jenrick @RobertJenrick Under new sentencing rules there is blatant discrimination against straight white men.
Starmer sneered at those who said we have a two-tier justice system. Rayner labelled them ‘conspiracy theorists’.
But here it is in black and white.
Two-tier justice under two-tier Keir."
He’s really good at this. Lucid, direct, aggressive, and he looks like the lead singer of the Killers
The Tories need him as leader. He’s probably the most cogent persuasive leadership candidate since Cameron - tho he’s appealing to a very different electorate
Very good analysis segment of TRIP on JD Vance's contempt for British and French soldiers who served alongside USA forces, and the blowback. I hadn't realised that the total numbers rotating in and out of Afghanistan were 100k+ in toto. His "I didn't mean them" is a bit tricky when 52 countries served in Iraq in the noughties, including 1600 from Ukr. Deep link.
Centrist Dads' supply perspicacious analysis, and context, as ever. JDV's real problem is that he does not look beyond the echo chamber in his own head.
Useful idiots for Trump continue to reverse ferret, except afaics for Nonny-Nonny-Nigel. And I bet the Leeanderthal Man too, but I haven't checked.
Feeble centrist dad likes feeble centrist dad content. Startling
Lol. I go where the analysis leads.
The Trump-enthusiasts are realising they are naked emperors, and coming to their senses a little.
Will you be?
You are very possibly the stupidest person on here, and I find your cluelessly predictable commentary enjoyable for this reason. You're like a guilty pleasure
You've said that to at least a dozen people. Poor memory, or just lots of guilt ?
No, just a lot of competition for the title "stupidest person on PB"
You won that title, at the beginning of the week.
Enough with all this small-dick energy; just try and come to terms with what you were dealt.
No, you and @kamski and the rest misunderatood the "Charlemage effect". But I am kindly letting it go because I am essentially a nice person and I know you get weirdly querulous and angry when confronted with your personal intellectual limitations. I imagine this peevishness is why your only friend is a dog, but I have no desire to make that loneliness worse, so go forth with my blessing, this sacred Ash Wednesday
We should all be kinder to each other, like me
I was intrigued by the works referred to in this discussion and went and read them. What was interesting was that the model is based on assuming that the parents are randomly drawn from all available people in a population. Which is a bit unlikely. The author admits this in his work. But what is undeniable is that if you go back enough generations you will find an individual who everyone alive is a direct descendent of. But that person is unlikely to have been either Rollo of Charlemagne. Then going furthe r back you will reach a point where everyone alive is is either an ancestor of that person or has no surviving descendants. The issue at hand was about when that would be. After one generation it’s obviously not. By 1000 years ago it’s plausible, but I think on the whole not proven, and certainly the argument that everyone alive now is descended from everyone at 1000 is not proven.
I also did some research!
And what you say is fair. The nature of compounding maths and go-forth-and-multiply does mean that one European person. 1000 years ago, can have tens of millions of living descendants now, and direct descendants at that. However the application of brute force maths can go too far, there are too many confounders, so @kamksi's claim (IIRC) that we are all direct descendants of Rollo is almost certainly wrong (I apologise if I have mischaracterised his argument, its been a busy week in which - not least - I have flown from Shanghai to London)
It was a fun argument. Especially as I am PROVABLY a direct descendant of Rollo, and also Snurtur, the Norse God of Ice and Fire,
How is a direct descendant different from just an ordinary descendant?
A direct descendant is someone who is directly descended from another person - such as a child, grandchild, great-grandchild, and so forth- in an unbroken lineage. It indicates a direct familial line without branching to siblings or cousins. For example, your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are all your direct descendants, whereas nieces, nephews, or cousins are not
nieces, nephews, or cousins are not descendents of any kind even though they are related by blood via antecedants (e.g. common grandparents)
Is that the strict definition? Fair enough if so, I was using it more colloquially - but still fairly, I reckon
A niece will have about 25% of the DNA of her uncle, which makes her a quasi-descendant, to my mind. This is also observed in nature, where uncles and aunts invest in nieces/nephews in terms of time and money, because it makes genetic sense to do so. You are thereby helping your genes to persist in your descendants, even if the descent is not directly parent to child
You have about 25% of the DNA of your maternal grandfather. You are still a direct descendant of him.
You are obviously not a direct descendant, or any kind of descendant, of your niece.
Well no, she’s my niece
So you are a (direct) descendant eg of your great great great father (3% DNA), and a non-descendant of your niece (25% DNA) who you are nevertheless related to.
That's it. No quasi-descendants. Perhaps you mean relations?
You are related to a lot of people and a direct descendant of a smaller number of people (but still a lot). Is that it?
Are you on drugs? How can I ever be descended from my niece, in any form?
I used to be of the view that there was very little mixing in ye olden days; people tended to live where they were born.
Over the years my view has changed, as I've read more and more about it. Yes, many in rural villages never moved. But many, many did. If you were the fifth son of a tenant farmer, you were not going to inherit anything, so you had to find another occupation, perhaps somewhere else. If you were a trader, you would often need to travel. Ditto the massive Medieval trade in shipping. Then there was religion: and not just people going on pilgrimages. And war: men traveling to support their king or lord. Or just the need to go to the nearest town to pick up a new hoe or implement the village blacksmith could not make. Or even just to view the latest fashion, or attend the town fair. People might also be banished from the village, or have such a big falling-out they feel the need to leave. Or, as now, people might just want to travel, to know what is over the next hill. Famine and war also caused massive population movements, and not just of armies. And as now, people tend to be freer with their play than when at home.
And in towns or cities, the movement and mixing was probably much greater.
Then there is the little-spoken about (or written about...) prostitution and rape. We are all going on about whether we have common ancestors; we all certainly will be, to a small extent, bastards. Or even the product of rape, somewhere down our lineage.
A couple of weeks ago I saw 3 "Wandergesellen" (I guess you'd translate it as 'journeymen' thought the tradition died out much earlier in Britain) walking down the street. It used to be a requirement (for many guilds) after completing an apprenticeship, to do a few (usually 3) "Wanderjahre" before you could become a master craftsman.
They are a fairly rare sight nowadays. Apparently around 450 in Germany - it's supported as a cultural tradition.
It claims 800 active now, though I'm not sure if that is Germany only.
You can easily recognise them by the uniforms they have to wear (pictures in article).
"At the beginning of the journey, the wanderer takes only a small, fixed sum of money with him (exactly five Deutsche Marks was common, now five euros); at its end, he should come home with exactly the same sum of money in his pocket. Thus, he is supposed neither to squander money nor to store up any riches during the journey, which should be undertaken only for the experience."
The West doing almost nothing about Putin invading Crimea was probably the biggest mistake.
Actually to be fair the West (UK and USA at least) did quite a bit after Crimea, but most of it behind the scenes.
Ironically had Putin marched straight on Kyiv in 2014 it would almost certainly have rapidly fallen, in days, as he'd planned this time - but post-Crimea we'd invested a fortune building up Ukraine's forces to the point they were able to repel Russia.
Its just a shame that the Americans have elected a President who wants to hand Russia a lifeline now from this war they're losing otherwise.
It seems that Trump wants to hand Ukraine to Russia . I expect next to go will be Starlink .
The UK is in such a difficult position with so much of our defence linked with the USA so we have to carry on this charade that the US is still an ally .
The UK is in a difficult position and calm heads are needed not to sever our military closeness to the US but buy the time to diversify away from the US
Careful diplomacy with the US is in our best interest, no matter how untasteful, but they can never be trusted again
We trusted them before, even after fighting wars against them earlier. We can trust them again in the future, if they succeed in expelling the Muskovites from the body politic.
Obviously, in the meantime, diplomacy often involves doing what you can with the leaders of countries who are not allies. The US is a massively important country, and British diplomats have to do the best they can to get the best from the relationship with them.
Sadly we simply can't risk that. We cannot trust the current administration not to betray our intelligence to the Russians and we can't rely on them for any sort of support. There is no point trusting them because we know they have no interest in helping us and the risk from trusting them is, for the first time in my life, greater than not trusting them.
I mean would you trust that Trump is not going to pass on our intelligence secrets to the Russians?
"..in the future, if they succeed in expelling the Muskovites from the body politic."
I want suggesting we trust them now, but disputing the statement that, "..they can never be trusted again."
"Robert Jenrick @RobertJenrick Under new sentencing rules there is blatant discrimination against straight white men.
Starmer sneered at those who said we have a two-tier justice system. Rayner labelled them ‘conspiracy theorists’.
But here it is in black and white.
Two-tier justice under two-tier Keir."
He’s really good at this. Lucid, direct, aggressive, and he looks like the lead singer of the Killers
The Tories need him as leader. He’s probably the most cogent persuasive leadership candidate since Cameron - tho he’s appealing to a very different electorate
He’s a corrupt grifter
I can see why he might appeal
His idea of a good idea was to spend Government money painting over a children's mural...
Comments
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
NEW THREAD
In the case of Russia there is a unique opportunity - they are an aggressively hostile country that engages in state backed cyberattacks and assassinations on British soil. But they are overcommitted and pinned down in Ukraine. Bluntly speaking, we can wear down their resources without commiting our own troops. That’s been British policy for centuries - of you looked at all the European alliances we typically provide money and material and let the Europeans do the dying
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journeyman_years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journeyman_years
It claims 800 active now, though I'm not sure if that is Germany only.
You can easily recognise them by the uniforms they have to wear (pictures in article).
"At the beginning of the journey, the wanderer takes only a small, fixed sum of money with him (exactly five Deutsche Marks was common, now five euros); at its end, he should come home with exactly the same sum of money in his pocket. Thus, he is supposed neither to squander money nor to store up any riches during the journey, which should be undertaken only for the experience."
I can see why he might appeal
I want suggesting we trust them now, but disputing the statement that, "..they can never be trusted again."