You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
Can @Dura_Ace tell us whether the USA can turn off our F35s - how much autonomy do we have?
(I don't know the detail. I know we have more autonomy, but not how much.)
Can the USA, for example, prevent them flying on the day over ... say ... Scotland? Or Ukraine?
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
To be fair, the 2025 data only contains information from six weeks of corporate bond sales, during which only a very small number of British non-financial firms issued bonds. I would be extremely surprised if Motability ends up in the top five when full year data is available.
(It's also worth noting that Motability tends to issue pretty short term debt, which means there is much more rolling over of existing bonds than with other firms.)
One last thing: Motability is a financial firm, and is owned by the High Street banks, so I think it's a little misleading to compare it to non financials.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Matt Goodwin, like that chap who used to work for Cameron, has really gone down the rabbit hole.
There’s a lot of alt right stuff trying to undermine confidence in Britain and Europe right now. I wonder why now and where it comes from. It’s not even subtle. 🤔
What exactly in that Goodwin article is factually wrong? We HAVE allowed in 100,000+ illegal migrants by boat since 2018. Free speech IS increasingly policed. Men DO get a tougher deal in almost all aspects - they die younger, do worse in education, and now - latest data - they earn less
This is not “Kremlin fucking disinformation” you moron. This is the case
Why should that man fight for the UK? Which has, by the by, taught his cohort to hate his own racist evil country, anyway
I know young men like this - couple in my family - and this is exactly what they think. So do fuck off
If you were a young working class white man, at almost any period in our history, the elites had a far lower opinion of you than they do today.
Yet, millions fought bravely for their country
Our problems are first world problems. If our society is conquered, they will become third world problems.
Perhaps, in the past, they fought for their country because they weren't continuously taught. from the age of 0, that their country is an evil racist pile of enslaving imperialist shit, that deserves to die
There are legions of young in Britain who say they will not fight.
Until you spill their pint.
The problem they have is should the need arise they won't have much say in the matter.
My late father didn't want to do National Service but he still wound up in Lyneham.
As a 63 year old I feel somewhat queasy when people of my age, say Nick Ferrari, baulk at the treachery of conscience objector youngsters. He didn't have to put his life on the line for Queen and Country, and neither did I. Would I now? Of course, but I'm not going to be asked, so my confirmation is a wholly academic response.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
More common conditions, including anxiety and depression do lead to awards of PIP mobility. Autistic spectrum disorder and PTSD attracted the highest proportion of awards. Nonetheless, 60% of claimants with depression and 67% of claimants with anxiety as their main condition got an award of the mobility component.
Being depressed entitles you to a car now?
A new car, changed every three years, free insurance for three drivers, and free servicing.
Only if you get the higher rate for mobility. People on the lower rate, or who only get the care component don't qualify for motability.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
You can believe that the war has at times has been badly prosecuted so far, and that many of the assumptions about Russia have been wrong, both of which I've said from the start, and still believe an American disengagement now would be very much against the West's interests.
Also should point out that PIP assessments are notoriously difficult to go through. The idea you can say "I'm feeling depressed" and that the DWP will take your word for it is Daily Mail style bollocks
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
Ukraine was invaded, with the intention of taking over the entire country, killing or imprisoning the leaders of society and destroying Ukrainian culture - to turn the place into a Russian province.
The Ukrainians faced an existential threat.
Since then, they have not been offered, by Russia, anything other than complete surrender.
So "encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians" is demonstrably bullshit.
There are legions of young in Britain who say they will not fight.
Until you spill their pint.
The problem they have is should the need arise they won't have much say in the matter.
My late father didn't want to do National Service but he still wound up in Lyneham.
As a 63 year old I feel somewhat queasy when people of my age, say Nick Ferrari, baulk at the treachery of conscience objector youngsters. He didn't have to put his life on the line for Queen and Country, and neither did I. Would I now? Of course, but I'm not going to be asked, so my confirmation is a wholly academic response.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
You could... for a cost. From memory, New Labour really ballsed that one up. If you want something capable of being altered in the future, fully pay for the passive provision for that capability. Don't just use it as a PR thing.
It might be cheaper just to build new carriers...
Yes, if we want CATOBAR carriers the best option is to sell the QEs to someone and build a new class of nuclear-powered carriers. The QEs are completely wedded to the F-35B. Given our present shipbuilding capacity new carriers would take at least a decade.
So if the US bricks the F-35s we probably end up a couple of very expensive drone carriers.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
There are legions of young in Britain who say they will not fight.
Until you spill their pint.
The problem they have is should the need arise they won't have much say in the matter.
My late father didn't want to do National Service but he still wound up in Lyneham.
As a 63 year old I feel somewhat queasy when people of my age, say Nick Ferrari, baulk at the treachery of conscience objector youngsters. He didn't have to put his life on the line for Queen and Country, and neither did I. Would I now? Of course, but I'm not going to be asked, so my confirmation is a wholly academic response.
Your father came of age before the big 60s-70s-80s swing to individualism and choice with all that entails.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
What is “stupid”, in terms of pure, cold-blooded, realpolitik, about bleeding Russia of men, money, and armoured vehicles? It’s what people like Kissinger, Talleyrand, Palmerston etc. would have done.
This is a case where the expedient course of action is also the morally correct course of action.
The dishonesty in the piece is to imply that Ukraine has been pushed into war by the West, against its own interests. When, in reality, Ukraine has no choice but to fight. Regardless whether the West supports them or not, they have no option in the matter.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
I only ever insult the actual companies. I think giant multinational banks can handle being called Douche Bank, JP Moron, Moron Stanley, United Bank of Shit, Debit Suisse etc etc...
Relatedly, we had one of these rolling around the neighbourhood in the 1990s. Apparently the government didn't forcibly take them back until 2007 - some customers loved them and didn't want to give them up. This was the genesis of Motability.
See loads of these pitch side on old repeats of Match of the Day and The Big Match.
I see that David Betz thinks Hungary is an "island of sanity".
There's a much problem of intellectual polarisation, in this case partly because opinion about the origins of the war in the West has been over-policed. The result partly is that reasonable questions are shoved to the sidelines, and parcelled up with loony Putinism and Orbanism.
This thin-skinned aspect has weakened the West's reputation in this war rather than strengthened it, because our mythology is freedom of perspective.
It'a simply that is the US withholds software support, it becomes unusable after a time. In a manner analogous to (but rather more complicated than) what is happening with Himars, and the withholding of target data in Russian territory.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
I am really proud that people have moved jobs/across the UK to work with me again.
Some people have worked with me over a decade, one of them is coming up nearly 20 years.
As my minions say they love working for a guy who they can call ‘a fucking child’ when I start giggling/making innuendos.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
What is “stupid”, in terms of pure, cold-blooded, realpolitik, about bleeding Russia of men, money, and armoured vehicles? It’s what people like Kissinger, Talleyrand, Palmerston etc. would have done.
This is a case where the expedient course of action is also the morally correct course of action.
The dishonesty in the piece is to imply that Ukraine has been pushed into war by the West, against its own interests. When, in reality, Ukraine has no choice but to fight. Regardless whether the West supports them or not, they have no option in the matter.
I'd also add that he is wrong that the west has underestimated Russian economic and military strength. The reverse is true.
The was in Ukraine is one of those occasions where doing the morally right thing coincides with doing the strategically advantageous thing.
NEW POLL: LABOUR STILL LEADS AS CONSERVATIVES DIPS, REFORM UK NO CHANGE Lab 28% (+2) Cons 21% (-1) Lib Dems 13% (=) Reform 25% (=) Greens 7% (-1) SNP 2% (=) Others 4% (=) 👥1632 surveyed | 🔎5-6 Feb 2025 | 🗓️+/- 28 Feb 2025
IMO recent events will tend to do two things WRT Reform. It will stabilise and level out the actual % supporting them; and secondly will reinforce the 'anyone but Reform' vote, so that at least the threat of them doing spectacularly well will be reduced.
In a national crisis most people don't really mind Lab/Con/LD making common cause as we all know really that most of their differences are window dressing + bits of red meat trivia for the faithful.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
Paul Dacre waves a cheery “hello, wanker”
Your Daily Mail career is finished now you've confirmed the Editor in Chief is a nasty ****!
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
I am really proud that people have moved jobs/across the UK to work with me again.
Some people have worked with me over a decade, one of them is coming up nearly 20 years.
As my minions say they love working for a guy who they can call ‘a fucking child’ when I start giggling/making innuendos.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
I looked into Motability last year to see why they did not do eg active wheelchairs (they do mobility scooters), and discovered how big they are. It's certainly nuts that they don't do lending on entire categories of mobility aids - such as e-assisted tricycles, which can easily cost up to 5k.
I'd like to see our footpath and other travel networks improved and separated so that people who don't need a full priced car aren't forced to spend their money one one.
I'd quite like to see how much general auto-lending has declined caused by lending companies due for the high jump withdrawing because of the claims risk, which may have driven some people to Motability who would have otherwise used other providers.
The 1948 borders are done for. Having started and lost multiple wars and the world moved on, the Arab side doesn't get a mulligan on that generous offer.
I don't think there's a viable Palestinian state or political class, so I think this post misses the most viable option of a three state solution. Reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, with some devolution of domestic and social policy but no independent military, policing, etc.
The challenge here is whether Egypt and Jordan would want to take them back.
In the case of Egypt, it was noticeable that they firmly kept their border with Gaza sealed shut throughout the war. In the case of Jordan, they already have a population of 10 million people, of which 2 million are Palestinian refugees. Taking back the West Bank would give the Palestinians a lot more power within the new Jordan. The Jordanians are likely to be very wary of this after Black September:
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
What is “stupid”, in terms of pure, cold-blooded, realpolitik, about bleeding Russia of men, money, and armoured vehicles? It’s what people like Kissinger, Talleyrand, Palmerston etc. would have done.
This is a case where the expedient course of action is also the morally correct course of action.
The dishonesty in the piece is to imply that Ukraine has been pushed into war by the West, against its own interests. When, in reality, Ukraine has no choice but to fight. Regardless whether the West supports them or not, they have no option in the matter.
I'd also add that he is wrong that the west has underestimated Russian economic and military strength. The reverse is true.
The was in Ukraine is one of those occasions where doing the morally right thing coincides with doing the strategically advantageous thing.
This is palpable bollocks. I know PB is not “the entire west” but it’s quite a good sample of mainstream educated western/British opinion
From month 3 of the war it was an endless stream of “Russia is collapsing”, “look at their stupid tanks”, “Putin is dying”, “any minute now the Russian economy will implode”
None of this has happened. And when some of us, like me and @topping and @Dura_Ace and @Luckyguy1983 dared to point out that Ukraine was in trouble we got called fucking appeasers and putinist shills for our pains
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
I am really proud that people have moved jobs/across the UK to work with me again.
Some people have worked with me over a decade, one of them is coming up nearly 20 years.
As my minions say they love working for a guy who they can call ‘a fucking child’ when I start giggling/making innuendos.
I once worked for a Commercial Director who would wear a sweatshirt to mandatory work related social events with "if pigs could fly, I'd be their squadron leader" printed on it with pictures of flying pigs. He wasn't lying. I hated the ground he walked on.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
I don't disagree with the suggestion that we should have sent them a crapload more kit, in order to defeat the invasion quickly. As I've been saying for years.
It's the arguments on the other side which have mutated over time - from 'we can't get involved as it risks nuclear war' to 'it will be over within days/weeks' to 'we can't send xyz bits of kit, because nuclear war' to 'give Russia what they want, as they've earned it'.
But the crapload more kit was only ever an option for the US, or a united Europe. And the second has only now happened because Europe has realised the consequences of the US wanting out completely.
And Betz's account of "the Ukrainian perspective" just seems to me utterly dishonest.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
Stupid, yes, but probably the least stupid option out of a number of stupid options.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
What is “stupid”, in terms of pure, cold-blooded, realpolitik, about bleeding Russia of men, money, and armoured vehicles? It’s what people like Kissinger, Talleyrand, Palmerston etc. would have done.
This is a case where the expedient course of action is also the morally correct course of action.
The dishonesty in the piece is to imply that Ukraine has been pushed into war by the West, against its own interests. When, in reality, Ukraine has no choice but to fight. Regardless whether the West supports them or not, they have no option in the matter.
I'd also add that he is wrong that the west has underestimated Russian economic and military strength. The reverse is true.
The was in Ukraine is one of those occasions where doing the morally right thing coincides with doing the strategically advantageous thing.
Western opinion seems simultaneously to overestimate and underestimate Russian military and economic strength. Or to oscillate between the two.
We don’t seem to have the strategic patience for a long generational struggle. Contrast with the Taliban’s 20 year wait for its opportunity, or indeed HTS’ 13 year wait in Syria.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
What is “stupid”, in terms of pure, cold-blooded, realpolitik, about bleeding Russia of men, money, and armoured vehicles? It’s what people like Kissinger, Talleyrand, Palmerston etc. would have done.
This is a case where the expedient course of action is also the morally correct course of action.
The dishonesty in the piece is to imply that Ukraine has been pushed into war by the West, against its own interests. When, in reality, Ukraine has no choice but to fight. Regardless whether the West supports them or not, they have no option in the matter.
I'd also add that he is wrong that the west has underestimated Russian economic and military strength. The reverse is true.
The was in Ukraine is one of those occasions where doing the morally right thing coincides with doing the strategically advantageous thing.
This is palpable bollocks. I know PB is not “the entire west” but it’s quite a good sample of mainstream educated western/British opinion
From month 3 of the war it was an endless stream of “Russia is collapsing”, “look at their stupid tanks”, “Putin is dying”, “any minute now the Russian economy will implode”
None of this has happened. And when some of us, like me and @topping and @Dura_Ace and @Luckyguy1983 dared to point out that Ukraine was in trouble we got called fucking appeasers and putinist shills for our pains
There has been a lot of over-optomistic prediction of Russian collapse over the years here on PB, it has to be said.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
More common conditions, including anxiety and depression do lead to awards of PIP mobility. Autistic spectrum disorder and PTSD attracted the highest proportion of awards. Nonetheless, 60% of claimants with depression and 67% of claimants with anxiety as their main condition got an award of the mobility component.
Being depressed entitles you to a car now?
A new car, changed every three years, free insurance for three drivers, and free servicing.
Only if you get the higher rate for mobility. People on the lower rate, or who only get the care component don't qualify for motability.
It's also a very big source of pre-owned and I think low mileage cars - 277k in 2023.
And they have, I think, quite tight mileage limits.
I knew someone in the 1990s where both he and his wife were disabled, she could not drive and he wanted more mileage - so he had a Motability car for each of them to double his allowance. Yes, he was a little bit Arthur Daley.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
Paul Dacre waves a cheery “hello, wanker”
Your Daily Mail career is finished now you've confirmed the Editor in Chief is a nasty ****!
No, my point is that he is famously abrasive (or was), prone to outrageous insults- but also a brilliant editor
It’s unusual, but horrible abuse and excellent management can sometimes go together. I can think of a couple of famous chefs as well
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
Putin penned an article on the first day of the invasion called "The Arrival of Russia and the New World" (Приход России и нового мира), which basically said that Ukraine is part of Russia. When the invasion got bogged down, the article was pulled.
So, yes, I think we can conclude that Russia's plan -initially at least- was to reabsorb Ukraine.
That doesn't look very likely now. But with over 600,000 casualties (which is equivalent to 15% of all Russian men between 18 and 24), one might equally ask the question, why are they still doing it?
There are legions of young in Britain who say they will not fight.
Until you spill their pint.
The problem they have is should the need arise they won't have much say in the matter.
My late father didn't want to do National Service but he still wound up in Lyneham.
As a 63 year old I feel somewhat queasy when people of my age, say Nick Ferrari, baulk at the treachery of conscience objector youngsters. He didn't have to put his life on the line for Queen and Country, and neither did I. Would I now? Of course, but I'm not going to be asked, so my confirmation is a wholly academic response.
Your father came of age before the big 60s-70s-80s swing to individualism and choice with all that entails.
My point still stands.
If my children get conscripted they will be marched by military policemen out of the house if they decide they don't fancy two years at Brize Norton.
Relatedly, we had one of these rolling around the neighbourhood in the 1990s. Apparently the government didn't forcibly take them back until 2007 - some customers loved them and didn't want to give them up. This was the genesis of Motability.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
I am really proud that people have moved jobs/across the UK to work with me again.
Some people have worked with me over a decade, one of them is coming up nearly 20 years.
As my minions say they love working for a guy who they can call ‘a fucking child’ when I start giggling/making innuendos.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
The Russian war aims (according to the Russian government) was the conquest of the entire Ukraine, elimination of its government and then a massive Russification program to turn it into a Russian province.
The latest Russian demand is half the country, all the coast line, and a puppet government in what is left.
Where, between the day of the invasion and now, could the Ukranians have got anything other than a demand for their surrender?
Relatedly, we had one of these rolling around the neighbourhood in the 1990s. Apparently the government didn't forcibly take them back until 2007 - some customers loved them and didn't want to give them up. This was the genesis of Motability.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
Stupid, yes, but probably the least stupid option out of a number of stupid options.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
Paul Dacre waves a cheery “hello, wanker”
Your Daily Mail career is finished now you've confirmed the Editor in Chief is a nasty ****!
No, my point is that he is famously abrasive (or was), prone to outrageous insults- but also a brilliant editor
It’s unusual, but horrible abuse and excellent management can sometimes go together. I can think of a couple of famous chefs as well
Not fun for the underlings, mind
He may be all the things you describe. It appears to me he was a dreadful and demotivational man manager.
Mind you I am conflicted when it comes to Alex Ferguson.
There are legions of young in Britain who say they will not fight.
Until you spill their pint.
The problem they have is should the need arise they won't have much say in the matter.
My late father didn't want to do National Service but he still wound up in Lyneham.
As a 63 year old I feel somewhat queasy when people of my age, say Nick Ferrari, baulk at the treachery of conscience objector youngsters. He didn't have to put his life on the line for Queen and Country, and neither did I. Would I now? Of course, but I'm not going to be asked, so my confirmation is a wholly academic response.
Your father came of age before the big 60s-70s-80s swing to individualism and choice with all that entails.
My point still stands.
If my children get conscripted they will be marched by military policemen out of the house if they decide they don't fancy two years at Brize Norton.
Also should point out that PIP assessments are notoriously difficult to go through. The idea you can say "I'm feeling depressed" and that the DWP will take your word for it is Daily Mail style bollocks
But no one's said that, at least in this conversation.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
The Russian war aims (according to the Russian government) was the conquest of the entire Ukraine, elimination of its government and then a massive Russification program to turn it into a Russian province.
The latest Russian demand is half the country, all the coast line, and a puppet government in what is left.
Where, between the day of the invasion and now, could the Ukranians have got anything other than a demand for their surrender?
The alt.right view somehow translates that as Ukraine is the aggressor and/or a quasi-racist belief that Russia’s soldiers are ubermenschen..
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
Paul Dacre waves a cheery “hello, wanker”
Your Daily Mail career is finished now you've confirmed the Editor in Chief is a nasty ****!
No, my point is that he is famously abrasive (or was), prone to outrageous insults- but also a brilliant editor
It’s unusual, but horrible abuse and excellent management can sometimes go together. I can think of a couple of famous chefs as well
Not fun for the underlings, mind
It can go together but not as cause and effect. A good manager who abuses his staff would be a better manager if he didn't.
There are legions of young in Britain who say they will not fight.
Until you spill their pint.
The problem they have is should the need arise they won't have much say in the matter.
My late father didn't want to do National Service but he still wound up in Lyneham.
As a 63 year old I feel somewhat queasy when people of my age, say Nick Ferrari, baulk at the treachery of conscience objector youngsters. He didn't have to put his life on the line for Queen and Country, and neither did I. Would I now? Of course, but I'm not going to be asked, so my confirmation is a wholly academic response.
Your father came of age before the big 60s-70s-80s swing to individualism and choice with all that entails.
My point still stands.
If my children get conscripted they will be marched by military policemen out of the house if they decide they don't fancy two years at Brize Norton.
The Palestinians believe that Israel is an occupying power ("from the river to the sea" is pretty unambiguous in terms of desired end state) and its very existence reason for the continued struggle, while Israel seems for the moment to be going nowhere.
Just off a call with a Hong Kong construction magnate.
Have no doubt, the world is going to look very different in not many years. America turning in on itself and away from world trade is an opportunity China is not going to miss.
There are legions of young in Britain who say they will not fight.
Until you spill their pint.
The problem they have is should the need arise they won't have much say in the matter.
My late father didn't want to do National Service but he still wound up in Lyneham.
As a 63 year old I feel somewhat queasy when people of my age, say Nick Ferrari, baulk at the treachery of conscience objector youngsters. He didn't have to put his life on the line for Queen and Country, and neither did I. Would I now? Of course, but I'm not going to be asked, so my confirmation is a wholly academic response.
Your father came of age before the big 60s-70s-80s swing to individualism and choice with all that entails.
My point still stands.
If my children get conscripted they will be marched by military policemen out of the house if they decide they don't fancy two years at Brize Norton.
“The market and the economy have become hooked, become addicted, to excessive government spending and there’s going to be a detox period.”
I'm looking forward to actually seeing the plan to lower VA Healthcare, Medicaid and Medicare spending. Because that, plus Social Security and debt interest, is almost two thirds of the Federal Budget.
The Palestinians believe that Israel is an occupying power ("from the river to the sea" is pretty unambiguous in terms of desired end state) and its very existence reason for the continued struggle, while Israel seems for the moment to be going nowhere.
In the West Bank they are literally an occupying power. And there are plenty of members of the current Israeli government who believe their country should run from the river to the sea.
Utter woke nonsense, you cannot have banter at work now.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
Where does the banter line cross into ignorant, unpleasant w@nkerdom?
I wouldn’t know, I am always a professional at work.
Glad to hear it.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
Paul Dacre waves a cheery “hello, wanker”
Your Daily Mail career is finished now you've confirmed the Editor in Chief is a nasty ****!
No, my point is that he is famously abrasive (or was), prone to outrageous insults- but also a brilliant editor
It’s unusual, but horrible abuse and excellent management can sometimes go together. I can think of a couple of famous chefs as well
Not fun for the underlings, mind
It can go together but not as cause and effect. A good manager who abuses his staff would be a better manager if he didn't.
The Imperial Japanese Navy lost, in the end. Despite lots of shouting and hitting. And even killing sailors for trivial reasons.
The Americans, with ice cream machines and air-conditioning* slapped them silly.
*Actually air-conditioning turned out to be a major win. By keeping temperatures constant, not only could the sailors get some sleep. Lower temperatures and reduced humidity massively increased the reliability of electronics and other machinery. Not to mention that on submarines, the water collected by the air con was fed into the fresh water making machinery....
“The market and the economy have become hooked, become addicted, to excessive government spending and there’s going to be a detox period.”
A detox period during which government spending will be redirected under the cover of chaos to the pockets of the Trump family and a handful of favoured oligarchs. Putin can offer tips on how to do it. He probably has.
On Motability, an interesting lesson for me. Something I’d not clocked as being a problem (fraudulent disability driving claims) does indeed seem to be one. Chalk it up as a successful PB teach-in.
“The market and the economy have become hooked, become addicted, to excessive government spending and there’s going to be a detox period.”
A detox period during which government spending will be redirected under the cover of chaos to the pockets of the Trump family and a handful of favoured oligarchs. Putin can offer tips on how to do it. He probably has.
To be fair to Putin and his friends, they take a cut from selling natural resources but taxes are low.
A one state solution is impossible because there are almost equal numbers of Palestinians and Jews in the area of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Now, one could attempt some kind of Northern Irish solution and try and force power sharing, but I simply don't buy it; simply you would be asking the Israeli Jews to give up control of their life and their state. If there were twice as many Jews and Palestinians, then some kind of Bosnian confederation might work, but there isn't. So, it can't work,
A two state solution is also impossible, because the Settlers make up an ever greater proportion of the Israeli population (and voters), and there is no appetite to remove them from the West Bank.
The only "solution" is ethnic cleansing, which results in the Palestinians being forced out of the West Bank and Gaza, and into neighbouring countries. That is what several members of the current Israeli cabinet openly propose. But that is morally repugnant.
So, war will continue. The Palestinians will suffer. While Israel will continue to endure terrorist attacks, because if you are a Palestinian, what do you have to lose?
As was mentioned above, there is a strategic hole in the Israeli approach that is demonstrated by the current Ukraine situation. If the US of whatever flavour decides they can be bothered or have interests elsewhere, then the supply of help could dry up. Two state solution could be call apartheid. The cleansing bit could go either way. One state solution may not appear viable but it has the least downside in the longer term.
(I know. I'm being idyllic but if you have been to both the WB and Israel, no one is happy. They are positively paranoid on the Israeli side which likely drives their short term decisions. But longer term ... or perhaps they hope never to have to deal with it, like Ukraine. And Pakistan with India; and the US with China etc .. no winners in wars.)
Generally Russia pushing forward, particularly in the Kursk region right now. Not all bad for Ukraine as they've retaken some positions in Pokorvsk (sp?) and Torestk recently.
If you look at a big map of Ukraine overall, neither side is going anywhere fast.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
The Russian war aims (according to the Russian government) was the conquest of the entire Ukraine, elimination of its government and then a massive Russification program to turn it into a Russian province.
The latest Russian demand is half the country, all the coast line, and a puppet government in what is left.
Where, between the day of the invasion and now, could the Ukranians have got anything other than a demand for their surrender?
The alt.right view somehow translates that as Ukraine is the aggressor and/or a quasi-racist belief that Russia’s soldiers are ubermenschen..
Trump: “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely “pounding” Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.”
There are legions of young in Britain who say they will not fight.
Until you spill their pint.
The problem they have is should the need arise they won't have much say in the matter.
My late father didn't want to do National Service but he still wound up in Lyneham.
As a 63 year old I feel somewhat queasy when people of my age, say Nick Ferrari, baulk at the treachery of conscience objector youngsters. He didn't have to put his life on the line for Queen and Country, and neither did I. Would I now? Of course, but I'm not going to be asked, so my confirmation is a wholly academic response.
Your father came of age before the big 60s-70s-80s swing to individualism and choice with all that entails.
My point still stands.
If my children get conscripted they will be marched by military policemen out of the house if they decide they don't fancy two years at Brize Norton.
Well they are not going to the EU ( 90 days later they arrive home) or America.
Because neither the EU or the US has a visa overstay problem... And Ireland doesn't even have those weak barriers.
In immigration anecdata news: one of our senior managers, Indian national here on a work visa, has resigned to relocate from the UK. The reason is he can’t get a dependent visa for his sick mother.
Obviously a loss for us, but if this is common then evidence that restricting dependent visas probably is reducing net migration.
In a rich day for anecdata of PB interest, especially in light of the whole “I ain’t fighting for modern Britain” thing, my friend’s son (white British father, half Iranian half Cambodian mother) has just signed up for an army commission.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Matt Goodwin, like that chap who used to work for Cameron, has really gone down the rabbit hole.
It does look rather profitable for him though...
So he may be down the rabbit hole because their are his views or because that is where the money is and his views are changing to reflect the time he's spent down said rabbit hole.
In the case of the grifters it's hard to work our whether the views or the money came first..
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
The Russian war aims (according to the Russian government) was the conquest of the entire Ukraine, elimination of its government and then a massive Russification program to turn it into a Russian province.
The latest Russian demand is half the country, all the coast line, and a puppet government in what is left.
Where, between the day of the invasion and now, could the Ukranians have got anything other than a demand for their surrender?
The alt.right view somehow translates that as Ukraine is the aggressor and/or a quasi-racist belief that Russia’s soldiers are ubermenschen..
Towards the start of this war, there was an article about the mothers of Russian conscripts complaining about the beastings - torture, in reality - that many recruits suffered. This was from before the war.
Edit: I'm unsure this is the one I'm thinking of, but here's one:
"Having the Russian word for “cock” carved on his forehead with a razor blade as punishment for smoking an illicit cigarette in his barracks toilet was the last straw for Private Artyom Pakhotin. "
You have used a word which everyone does, and I think it is at the heart of why therer has been no solution possible: refugees.
People fleeing their homes in Gaza as the IDF bomb them are refugees. The multi-generational decedents of the people who left what is now Israel in 1948? Not refugees.
So if a thief keeps the stuff he stole long enough, it's his?
I'm sure that's music to Vladimir Putin's ears. And the Chinese in Tibet and so on. It's not completely unreasonable - it's why the Americans don't restore their land to the Natives after all - but it's a terrible precedent in this case, where the theft post-dates the improvement in international behaviour we optimistically tried to achieve after two murderous world wars.
The right of return of refugees is a recognised principle of intenrational humanitarian law for a reason, and Israel doesn't get a pass just because it has had the military force to renege on its obligations for 70 years.
In fact, of course, given Israel's large settlement building programme in the West Bank, the theft is ongoing. A Palestinian state in Gaza may just about be viable if your rose tinted spectacles are strong enough, but the West Bank would look like Swiss cheese, and with intrusive Israeli border posts around every village, at which Palestinians are delayed for hours while Israelis mysteriously get through in five minutes, there's no realistic way such a state would have the consent of its inhabitants at all.
Then, how far back do you go? If you support returning the Palestinians to their land (I assume you mean those forced out from the designated Palestinian land taken by Israel in 1948) then I assume you would also support a return of Germany and Poland to their borders pre-1945. It's only 3 years apart after all, and in the case of the lost German land, mostly homogenous ethnic German in 1939 so no justification for it being Polish and certainly not Russian.
I agree that the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Poland and Poles from the USSR after the Second World War was a huge crime, comparable to the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians at about the same time, and perhaps even worse, in terms of lives lost, than the disaster of Indian independence.
There's a crucial difference, though: the Germans and Poles have accepted their current borders, though they were determined by ethnic cleansing.
The Palestinians, as you may have noticed, have not.
In fact, even the Israeli government in the 1950s felt a bit guilty about their theft and ethnic cleansing - they offered to take 100,000 of the 700,000 Palestinians back in return for a peace treaty, thereby fulfilling a seventh of their international obligations. The Arabs refused, because Israeli had a clear obligation to take them all back.
Hence seventy years of instability, and realistically probably another seventy.
I mean there was a war in 1947-48. And borders, whether we like it or not, are often determined via war. We only get exercised when the wrong side wins.
Israel's existence is based on the right of return after over a 1000 years, refusing a right of return after less than 100 years (or 1 in DJT's proposal) is clearly not even-handed, so not a great basis for a stable future.
First off, Jews didn't have a right of return. They bought land from the inhabitants around the turn of the century. Some would say they were returning to the land of their fathers but you have dimwits like @Richard_Tyndall saying the Jews weren't indigenous to the area.
Then you had the situation where there were enough of them so by treaty (thanks for nothing Balfour) promising them land there.
Then you had the UN partition plan, accepted by the Jews, rejected by the Arabs.
Then you had war. And once you have war, all bets are off.
What do you call indigenous? If you are claiming the Jews are indigenous from 3000 years ago then what about the Canaanites or the Amorites who were there before them?
The whole basis of your argument is infantile. Par for the course with you.
Trump: “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely “pounding” Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.”
The Palestinians believe that Israel is an occupying power ("from the river to the sea" is pretty unambiguous in terms of desired end state) and its very existence reason for the continued struggle, while Israel seems for the moment to be going nowhere.
It's certainly hard to see one right now. But things can change. Perhaps one day in America there will come to power a hard-nosed deal-making President who will use their leverage over Israel and its Arab neighbours in a forceful yet balanced way to force a two state solution.
Trump: “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely “pounding” Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.”
South Africa is being terrible, plus, to long time Farmers in the country. They are confiscating their LAND and FARMS, and MUCH WORSE THAN THAT. A bad place to be right now, and we are stopping all Federal Funding. To go a step further, any Farmer (with family!) from South Africa, seeking to flee that country for reasons of safety, will be invited into the United States of America with a rapid pathway to Citizenship. This process will begin immediately!
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
The Russian war aims (according to the Russian government) was the conquest of the entire Ukraine, elimination of its government and then a massive Russification program to turn it into a Russian province.
The latest Russian demand is half the country, all the coast line, and a puppet government in what is left.
Where, between the day of the invasion and now, could the Ukranians have got anything other than a demand for their surrender?
The alt.right view somehow translates that as Ukraine is the aggressor and/or a quasi-racist belief that Russia’s soldiers are ubermenschen..
Towards the start of this war, there was an article about the mothers of Russian conscripts complaining about the beastings - torture, in reality - that many recruits suffered. This was from before the war.
The demented brutality of the army was noted through Soviet times. Resulting in a non-trivial death rate among conscripts.
According to my stepmother, the Airforce was relatively sane. A Russian work colleague who worked on Backfire bombers said that it was a bit of a refuge - people would pull strings to do their conscription there.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
The Russian war aims (according to the Russian government) was the conquest of the entire Ukraine, elimination of its government and then a massive Russification program to turn it into a Russian province.
The latest Russian demand is half the country, all the coast line, and a puppet government in what is left.
Where, between the day of the invasion and now, could the Ukranians have got anything other than a demand for their surrender?
The alt.right view somehow translates that as Ukraine is the aggressor and/or a quasi-racist belief that Russia’s soldiers are ubermenschen..
It's a very old trope, likely dating from Tacitus' Germania.
The idea that people who live in terrible circumstances, who are both subject to, and dish out, unbridled cruelty, make great solders.
Russia's military record, overall, is certainly no better than that of the "decadent democracies" it matches itself against. Devereux also punctures the myth that Sparta was any kind of great military power (it's record was actually distinctly average).
Trump: “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely “pounding” Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.”
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Matt Goodwin, like that chap who used to work for Cameron, has really gone down the rabbit hole.
It does look rather profitable for him though...
So he may be down the rabbit hole because their are his views or because that is where the money is and his views are changing to reflect the time he's spent down said rabbit hole.
In the case of the grifters it's hard to work our whether the views or the money came first..
The Palestinians believe that Israel is an occupying power ("from the river to the sea" is pretty unambiguous in terms of desired end state) and its very existence reason for the continued struggle, while Israel seems for the moment to be going nowhere.
In the West Bank they are literally an occupying power. And there are plenty of members of the current Israeli government who believe their country should run from the river to the sea.
They occupied it via war and the UN (infamous Resolutions 242 and 338( didn't tell them to get out.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
Ah that guy. You might also want to read his article about how Hungary is great and why Britain should not support the‘ stupid’ Ukraine war. He’s so balanced.
Yes, here's his opinion of the Ukraine war. Be a good centrist dad, and point out the bit that is insane -
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a violation of sovereign territory and hence to be deplored. Does/did Russia think that Ukraine was really Russia West - and should be (re)claimed? No idea I suppose wiki tells me it depends on what point you push the red button to start assessing.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
The Russian war aims (according to the Russian government) was the conquest of the entire Ukraine, elimination of its government and then a massive Russification program to turn it into a Russian province.
The latest Russian demand is half the country, all the coast line, and a puppet government in what is left.
Where, between the day of the invasion and now, could the Ukranians have got anything other than a demand for their surrender?
The alt.right view somehow translates that as Ukraine is the aggressor and/or a quasi-racist belief that Russia’s soldiers are ubermenschen..
Towards the start of this war, there was an article about the mothers of Russian conscripts complaining about the beastings - torture, in reality - that many recruits suffered. This was from before the war.
The demented brutality of the army was noted through Soviet times. Resulting in a non-trivial death rate among conscripts.
According to my stepmother, the Airforce was relatively sane. A Russian work colleague who worked on Backfire bombers said that it was a bit of a refuge - people would pull strings to do their conscription there.
I remember an article in the 1990's about bullying in the Russian army. It was so bad that young soldiers were getting killed, leading to an uproar.
The Palestinians believe that Israel is an occupying power ("from the river to the sea" is pretty unambiguous in terms of desired end state) and its very existence reason for the continued struggle, while Israel seems for the moment to be going nowhere.
It's certainly hard to see one right now. But things can change. Perhaps one day in America there will come to power a hard-nosed deal-making President who will use their leverage over Israel and its Arab neighbours in a forceful yet balanced way to force a two state solution.
I don't think many Palestinians, certainly the democratically-elected government of Gaza, wants a two-state solution.
The Palestinians believe that Israel is an occupying power ("from the river to the sea" is pretty unambiguous in terms of desired end state) and its very existence reason for the continued struggle, while Israel seems for the moment to be going nowhere.
It's certainly hard to see one right now. But things can change. Perhaps one day in America there will come to power a hard-nosed deal-making President who will use their leverage over Israel and its Arab neighbours in a forceful yet balanced way to force a two state solution.
I don't think many Palestinians, certainly the democratically-elected government of Gaza, wants a two-state solution.
That's is as maybe, but since Likud came to power in 1977, the West Bank Arabs have been treated like third class citizens in their own country.
Gov Sununu is an uber moderate RINO that is why and could certainly win, that tells you sod all about the rest of the midterms which will be a referendum on Trump's presidency and the impact of his tariffs on the economy in particular
There are 35 Senate seats up for grabs.
Only 7 are at all competitive. One of these is the Democrat held New Hampshire. It's quite significant for the Senate midterms if the Dems lose it.
Sununu may in some ways be "moderate" but he's 100% backing Trump since a while back AFAIK
Tillis looks like he might lose North Carolina.
The Dems should take North Carolina and Maine. They may lose New Hampshire - but however popular Sununu is, in a midterm election with an unpopular President, I just don't see it.
Gains beyond North Carolina and Maine will, however, be harder. If Sherrod Brown - who won Ohio in the last Trump midterms - were to stand again, then I suppose that could come into play. Joni Ernst in Iowa only just won last time around, so that's a possible.
And then there are Texas and Florida, but it would need to be a monumentally bad night for the Republicans for those to come into play.
With Republicans now on 53 senators , and up to 3 of them willing to vote against Trump a net Dem gain of only 1 or 2 could still make a big difference
Trump: “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely “pounding” Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.”
"I also think Russia wants to make a deal because in a certain different way, a way only I know, they have no choice either."
The trouble is that comment could be a lie, or it could be a mistake, or it might be Russian disinformation he's been fed, and it could be some intelligence assessment that he's blabbing about.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
Totally ripe for reform.
What's the problem?
Are you arguing that a free market in motor vehicles should not exist?
Comments
"Now focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, it started a little more than two years ago. Was there any part of it in which it looked like it wasn’t going to be a stupid war?"
Betz: "No. It is paradigmatically stupid: unnecessary and unwinnable.
Moreover, it seems now obvious that the decision on the part of the West to pursue the war in the way that it has done was on the basis of a series of very flawed, even hubristic, assumptions, the primary one being that Russia was nowhere as economically strong and militarily capable as it has turned out to be."
"Can we label this war as ‘stupid’ even from a Ukrainian perspective?"
Betz: "From the Ukrainian perspective, it is a different story. But speaking from a Western perspective, with respect to the Western involvement in the Russo-Ukraine war, using Ukraine as its proxy, as essentially a meat puppet, it is a stupid war. Ukraine has been used very cynically, been ‘led up the garden path’ to use an English cliché. That’s what I’m what I’m talking about. I do think the Ukrainians are in a horrible position of having very limited, very limited choices. But they’ve been encouraged to do the stupid thing.
"They’ve been encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. It’s a country that has had something about a third to half of its population displaced abroad. Who knows if they will move back and of course, many, many thousands of their soldiers have been killed. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of Western involvement. When it comes down to it, Ukrainians have been very badly used by the West, which will ultimately abandon them. "
https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/interview/hungary_-stupid-wars_west-russia-ukraine_peace_david-betz_interview/
One of the questions for candidates for roles within the US equivalent of the UK Civil Service is : Who won the 2020 Presidential Election?
Hands up if you know the "right" answer. The problem they have is should the need arise they won't have much say in the matter.
My late father didn't want to do National Service but he still wound up in Lyneham.
As a 63 year old I feel somewhat queasy when people of my age, say Nick Ferrari, baulk at the treachery of conscience objector youngsters. He didn't have to put his life on the line for Queen and Country, and neither did I. Would I now? Of course, but I'm not going to be asked, so my confirmation is a wholly academic response.
Bank solicitor who nicknamed colleagues 'Pol Pot', 'The idiot' and 'Jabba the Hutt' fined £15k
A former head of legal at BNP Paribas has been fined £15,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that calling his bosses “c***s” and his underlings “mad” and “autistic” breached SRA Principles.
The tribunal heard how Benedict Foster “created and/or used” inappropriate nicknames for his colleagues which included “Mad Paul”, “Pol Pot”, “The idiot”, “Jabba the Hutt”, “The Twittering Fool”, and “Hu She” for an Asian employee.
The solicitor was also prosecuted for several emails sent during the pandemic.
In them he referred to senior colleagues as a "bunch of c**ts", signed off with "Fuck knows", sent two which just said "What the fuck is this?" and "Looks like a bunch of cock", and sent another asking if an individual was autistic.
Other nicknames he gave colleagues included “Biryani”, “The Candidate”, “The Black Swan”, “Dr No”, “Boomerang Jack”, “The Sleeping Giant”, “The International Hair”, “Les Miserables”, “Bryan Ferry”, “Scaramanga”, “Moomintroll”, “Knick-Knack”, “Corporal Jones” and “Mr Incredible”. At least he was having fun with it.
Foster, who qualified in 1988 and was head of the London Debt and Equity Capital Markets team in 2021 when he embarked on his naming odyssey, denied there was any racism or misogyny in his comic works.
He explained that the actual name of the woman he nicknamed ‘Hu She’ was pronounced ‘Who-ee Who-ah”, and his nickname was based on that and the running ‘Who He?’ joke in Private Eye, as he had never met her.
But he admitted his choice could be interpreted as ridiculing a traditional Chinese name and was “derogatory and unprofessional”.
He also accepted that nicknaming a French lawyer working in his team “Mad Paul” was inappropriate and offensive. As were the other monikers, even though their owners were not aware of them, and even if they had shared his sense of humour.
“Mad Paul” certainly didn’t: after Foster conducted his exit interview, he reported him to the bank.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/bank-solicitor-who-nicknamed-colleagues-pol-pot-idiot-and-jabba-hutt-fined-ps15k
The past doesn't always make the present.
The Ukrainians faced an existential threat.
Since then, they have not been offered, by Russia, anything other than complete surrender.
So "encouraged to effectively take actions which will probably result in the collapse of their country and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians" is demonstrably bullshit.
So if the US bricks the F-35s we probably end up a couple of very expensive drone carriers.
This is a case where the expedient course of action is also the morally correct course of action.
The dishonesty in the piece is to imply that Ukraine has been pushed into war by the West, against its own interests. When, in reality, Ukraine has no choice but to fight. Regardless whether the West supports them or not, they have no option in the matter.
I have tended to find, over what could laughingly be called my career, that managers who beast subordinates do so, among other things, to mask their own incompetence.
There's a much problem of intellectual polarisation, in this case partly because opinion about the origins of the war in the West has been over-policed. The result partly is that reasonable questions are shoved to the sidelines, and parcelled up with loony Putinism and Orbanism.
This thin-skinned aspect has weakened the West's reputation in this war rather than strengthened it, because our mythology is freedom of
perspective.
It'a simply that is the US withholds software support, it becomes unusable after a time. In a manner analogous to (but rather more complicated than) what is happening with Himars, and the withholding of target data in Russian territory.
But the West has been pretty clear in its strategy of degrading Russia and its military capabilities over three years, short of formal hostilities using Ukraine to do so. Now, that may be the smartest thing we could have done done. Look at where we are now, Russia is bogged down and moving glacially (I say that, but I haven't kept up with the map - has anyone?).
But what has that meant for Ukraine - thousands upon thousands of deaths while the military and political big brains of the West look on, throwing just enough but not too much materiel at them.
Perhaps there is no other way but it does seem a bit, er, stupid.
Some people have worked with me over a decade, one of them is coming up nearly 20 years.
As my minions say they love working for a guy who they can call ‘a fucking child’ when I start giggling/making innuendos.
The was in Ukraine is one of those occasions where doing the morally right thing coincides with doing the strategically advantageous thing.
In a national crisis most people don't really mind Lab/Con/LD making common cause as we all know really that most of their differences are window dressing + bits of red meat trivia for the faithful.
I'd like to see our footpath and other travel networks improved and separated so that people who don't need a full priced car aren't forced to spend their money one one.
I'd quite like to see how much general auto-lending has declined caused by lending companies due for the high jump withdrawing because of the claims risk, which may have driven some people to Motability who would have otherwise used other providers.
It's generally a good article imo.
In the case of Egypt, it was noticeable that they firmly kept their border with Gaza sealed shut throughout the war.
In the case of Jordan, they already have a population of 10 million people, of which 2 million are Palestinian refugees. Taking back the West Bank would give the Palestinians a lot more power within the new Jordan. The Jordanians are likely to be very wary of this after Black September:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
From month 3 of the war it was an endless stream of “Russia is collapsing”, “look at their stupid tanks”, “Putin is dying”, “any minute now the Russian economy will implode”
None of this has happened. And when some of us, like me and @topping and @Dura_Ace and @Luckyguy1983 dared to point out that Ukraine was in trouble we got called fucking appeasers and putinist shills for our pains
It's the arguments on the other side which have mutated over time - from 'we can't get involved as it risks nuclear war' to 'it will be over within days/weeks' to 'we can't send xyz bits of kit, because nuclear war' to 'give Russia what they want, as they've earned it'.
But the crapload more kit was only ever an option for the US, or a united Europe.
And the second has only now happened because Europe has realised the consequences of the US wanting out completely.
And Betz's account of "the Ukrainian perspective" just seems to me utterly dishonest.
YMMV.
We don’t seem to have the strategic patience for a long generational struggle. Contrast with the Taliban’s 20 year wait for its opportunity, or indeed HTS’ 13 year wait in Syria.
And they have, I think, quite tight mileage limits.
I knew someone in the 1990s where both he and his wife were disabled, she could not drive and he wanted more mileage - so he had a Motability car for each of them to double his allowance. Yes, he was a little bit Arthur Daley.
It’s unusual, but horrible abuse and excellent management can sometimes go together. I can think
of a couple of famous chefs as well
Not fun for the underlings, mind
So, yes, I think we can conclude that Russia's plan -initially at least- was to reabsorb Ukraine.
That doesn't look very likely now. But with over 600,000 casualties (which is equivalent to 15% of all Russian men between 18 and 24), one might equally ask the question, why are they still doing it?
If my children get conscripted they will be marched by military policemen out of the house if they decide they don't fancy two years at Brize Norton.
Scott Bessent on CNBC:
“The market and the economy have become hooked, become addicted, to excessive government spending and there’s going to be a detox period.”
The latest Russian demand is half the country, all the coast line, and a puppet government in what is left.
Where, between the day of the invasion and now, could the Ukranians have got anything other than a demand for their surrender?
Mind you I am conflicted when it comes to Alex Ferguson.
Who is worth half a billion.
The Palestinians believe that Israel is an occupying power ("from the river to the sea" is pretty unambiguous in terms of desired end state) and its very existence reason for the continued struggle, while Israel seems for the moment to be going nowhere.
What moves should we expect from China?
The Americans, with ice cream machines and air-conditioning* slapped them silly.
*Actually air-conditioning turned out to be a major win. By keeping temperatures constant, not only could the sailors get some sleep. Lower temperatures and reduced humidity massively increased the reliability of electronics and other machinery. Not to mention that on submarines, the water collected by the air con was fed into the fresh water making machinery....
A lot has been said about big tech, but elite capture by large financial interests also really is a thing here.
Sorry @kinabalu
(I know. I'm being idyllic but if you have been to both the WB and Israel, no one is happy. They are positively paranoid on the Israeli side which likely drives their short term decisions. But longer term ... or perhaps they hope never to have to deal with it, like Ukraine. And Pakistan with India; and the US with China etc .. no winners in wars.)
If you look at a big map of Ukraine overall, neither side is going anywhere fast.
@annmarie
Trump: “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely “pounding” Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.”
https://x.com/annmarie/status/1898015853293010965
Obviously a loss for us, but if this is common then evidence that restricting dependent visas probably is reducing net migration.
In a rich day for anecdata of PB interest, especially in light of the whole “I ain’t fighting for modern Britain” thing, my friend’s son (white British father, half Iranian half Cambodian mother) has just signed up for an army commission.
So he may be down the rabbit hole because their are his views or because that is where the money is and his views are changing to reflect the time he's spent down said rabbit hole.
In the case of the grifters it's hard to work our whether the views or the money came first..
Edit: I'm unsure this is the one I'm thinking of, but here's one:
"Having the Russian word for “cock” carved on his forehead with a razor blade as punishment for smoking an illicit cigarette in his barracks toilet was the last straw for Private Artyom Pakhotin. "
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/02/17/decade-after-military-reform-hazing-plagues-russian-army-a69309
I know we have had some trouble with recruits and hazing - as seen in the news just this week - but Russia seems to have normalised it.
The whole basis of your argument is infantile. Par for the course with you.
The age of the loom, indeed.
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1898012609708015644
South Africa is being terrible, plus, to long time Farmers in the country. They are confiscating their LAND and FARMS, and MUCH WORSE THAN THAT. A bad place to be right now, and we are stopping all Federal Funding. To go a step further, any Farmer (with family!) from South Africa, seeking to flee that country for reasons of safety, will be invited into the United States of America with a rapid pathway to Citizenship. This process will begin immediately!
According to my stepmother, the Airforce was relatively sane. A Russian work colleague who worked on Backfire bombers said that it was a bit of a refuge - people would pull strings to do their conscription there.
The idea that people who live in terrible circumstances, who are both subject to, and dish out, unbridled cruelty, make great solders.
Russia's military record, overall, is certainly no better than that of the "decadent democracies" it matches itself against. Devereux also punctures the myth that Sparta was any kind of great military power (it's record was actually distinctly average).
Cutting off military aid and intelligence to Ukraine is helping Russia to bombard the country . So his latest tirade is designed to dupe the gullible.
"I also think Russia wants to make a deal because in a certain different way, a way only I know, they have no choice either."
The trouble is that comment could be a lie, or it could be a mistake, or it might be Russian disinformation he's been fed, and it could be some intelligence assessment that he's blabbing about.
Are you arguing that a free market in motor vehicles should not exist?