It’s quite funny how for decades the liberal Hollywood chaps have used the Military Industrial Complex as a baddie, plotting to take down good people who threaten their interests and yet if this shady cabal exists it might be the best hope of stopping Trump in his tracks.
You have to imagine that somewhere in a dark room in Washington DC the heads of defence manufacturers and related parties are meeting about how Trump has single handedly destroyed export markets of their most expensive products in a couple of months whilst also announcing cuts to domestic spending on defence.
At what point do they become the plotters of film and tv and try and remove him?
It's also ironic that one of Trumpski's persistent complaints is that Europeans don't buy American cars, while they did buy most of their weapons.
We are still not buying their cars, especially Tesla's, or their weapons.
He freaks out about balance of trade. Well, guess what...
Their cars are exceptionally ugly which doesn’t help. Teslas look shit - apparently because it’s about eking out every bit of efficiency - but I’m sure a few fewer miles per charge for a better looking car isn’t the worst idea.
I don't think they look ugly, actually. Certainly not compared to the prototype new Jag.
The big problem is they've been bought by rather too many people who drive like utter bellends, and that seems unlikely to change.
TBF I haven't particularly noticed Tesla cars being driven badly that much: the crown for that still goes to Audi and BMW.
Buying a new car is the second-most expensive thing most of us will buy, after a house. And you have far more choice with a car than you do with a house, as your choice is much less price and geographically limited. Therefore the car you buy reflects an image of yourself, and this is why so many Tesla drivers are rather (ahem) defensive over their purchase now. Or even rabidly still defending Tesla and Musk.
And no, you cannot really separate Musk and Tesla.
It’s quite funny how for decades the liberal Hollywood chaps have used the Military Industrial Complex as a baddie, plotting to take down good people who threaten their interests and yet if this shady cabal exists it might be the best hope of stopping Trump in his tracks.
You have to imagine that somewhere in a dark room in Washington DC the heads of defence manufacturers and related parties are meeting about how Trump has single handedly destroyed export markets of their most expensive products in a couple of months whilst also announcing cuts to domestic spending on defence.
At what point do they become the plotters of film and tv and try and remove him?
It's also ironic that one of Trumpski's persistent complaints is that Europeans don't buy American cars, while they did buy most of their weapons.
We are still not buying their cars, especially Tesla's, or their weapons.
He freaks out about balance of trade. Well, guess what...
Their cars are exceptionally ugly which doesn’t help. Teslas look shit - apparently because it’s about eking out every bit of efficiency - but I’m sure a few fewer miles per charge for a better looking car isn’t the worst idea.
Looks are 100% subjective though. I think the Model S looks fine and hasn't dated too much despite its immense age. The rest of the range is amorphously bland and clearly way behind the European and Asian competition.
When manufacturers focus group cars they find people will prefer designs that are most like ones with which they are already familiar. Hence endless recycling of design themes with ID.Buzz, Renault 5, 12cilindri, etc.
Russia’s Engels Airbase, home to a significant portion of the Russian Air Force bomber fleet, suffered a massive explosion after a Ukrainian drone attack this morning.
It’s quite funny how for decades the liberal Hollywood chaps have used the Military Industrial Complex as a baddie, plotting to take down good people who threaten their interests and yet if this shady cabal exists it might be the best hope of stopping Trump in his tracks.
You have to imagine that somewhere in a dark room in Washington DC the heads of defence manufacturers and related parties are meeting about how Trump has single handedly destroyed export markets of their most expensive products in a couple of months whilst also announcing cuts to domestic spending on defence.
At what point do they become the plotters of film and tv and try and remove him?
It's also ironic that one of Trumpski's persistent complaints is that Europeans don't buy American cars, while they did buy most of their weapons.
We are still not buying their cars, especially Tesla's, or their weapons.
He freaks out about balance of trade. Well, guess what...
Their cars are exceptionally ugly which doesn’t help. Teslas look shit - apparently because it’s about eking out every bit of efficiency - but I’m sure a few fewer miles per charge for a better looking car isn’t the worst idea.
I don't think they look ugly, actually. Certainly not compared to the prototype new Jag.
The big problem is they've been bought by rather too many people who drive like utter bellends, and that seems unlikely to change.
TBF I haven't particularly noticed Tesla cars being driven badly that much: the crown for that still goes to Audi and BMW.
Buying a new car is the second-most expensive thing most of us will buy, after a house. And you have far more choice with a car than you do with a house, as your choice is much less price and geographically limited. Therefore the car you buy reflects an image of yourself, and this is why so many Tesla drivers are rather (ahem) defensive over their purchase now. Or even rabidly still defending Tesla and Musk.
And no, you cannot really separate Musk and Tesla.
It’s quite funny how for decades the liberal Hollywood chaps have used the Military Industrial Complex as a baddie, plotting to take down good people who threaten their interests and yet if this shady cabal exists it might be the best hope of stopping Trump in his tracks.
You have to imagine that somewhere in a dark room in Washington DC the heads of defence manufacturers and related parties are meeting about how Trump has single handedly destroyed export markets of their most expensive products in a couple of months whilst also announcing cuts to domestic spending on defence.
At what point do they become the plotters of film and tv and try and remove him?
It's also ironic that one of Trumpski's persistent complaints is that Europeans don't buy American cars, while they did buy most of their weapons.
We are still not buying their cars, especially Tesla's, or their weapons.
He freaks out about balance of trade. Well, guess what...
Their cars are exceptionally ugly which doesn’t help. Teslas look shit - apparently because it’s about eking out every bit of efficiency - but I’m sure a few fewer miles per charge for a better looking car isn’t the worst idea.
I don't think they look ugly, actually. Certainly not compared to the prototype new Jag.
The big problem is they've been bought by rather too many people who drive like utter bellends, and that seems unlikely to change.
TBF I haven't particularly noticed Tesla cars being driven badly that much: the crown for that still goes to Audi and BMW.
Buying a new car is the second-most expensive thing most of us will buy, after a house. And you have far more choice with a car than you do with a house, as your choice is much less price and geographically limited. Therefore the car you buy reflects an image of yourself, and this is why so many Tesla drivers are rather (ahem) defensive over their purchase now. Or even rabidly still defending Tesla and Musk.
And no, you cannot really separate Musk and Tesla.
It’s quite funny how for decades the liberal Hollywood chaps have used the Military Industrial Complex as a baddie, plotting to take down good people who threaten their interests and yet if this shady cabal exists it might be the best hope of stopping Trump in his tracks.
You have to imagine that somewhere in a dark room in Washington DC the heads of defence manufacturers and related parties are meeting about how Trump has single handedly destroyed export markets of their most expensive products in a couple of months whilst also announcing cuts to domestic spending on defence.
At what point do they become the plotters of film and tv and try and remove him?
It's also ironic that one of Trumpski's persistent complaints is that Europeans don't buy American cars, while they did buy most of their weapons.
We are still not buying their cars, especially Tesla's, or their weapons.
He freaks out about balance of trade. Well, guess what...
Their cars are exceptionally ugly which doesn’t help. Teslas look shit - apparently because it’s about eking out every bit of efficiency - but I’m sure a few fewer miles per charge for a better looking car isn’t the worst idea.
I don't think they look ugly, actually. Certainly not compared to the prototype new Jag.
The big problem is they've been bought by rather too many people who drive like utter bellends, and that seems unlikely to change.
TBF I haven't particularly noticed Tesla cars being driven badly that much: the crown for that still goes to Audi and BMW.
Buying a new car is the second-most expensive thing most of us will buy, after a house. And you have far more choice with a car than you do with a house, as your choice is much less price and geographically limited. Therefore the car you buy reflects an image of yourself, and this is why so many Tesla drivers are rather (ahem) defensive over their purchase now. Or even rabidly still defending Tesla and Musk.
And no, you cannot really separate Musk and Tesla.
Lord Glasman was the ONLY british politician invited to be seated at the Trump inauguration fest and yet he has just been on Newsnight completely slagging off Trumpski policy - such as it is - over Ukraine and praising Starmer's leadership.
Interesting character and background.
Labour seem to have too many intellectuals which leads to internal stress within the Party. The Conservatives seem the opposite, denuded of serious thinkers to be replaced by the cult of the Market. It's a poor collection if IDS is the only one who is serious not just about policy but how to apply those policies.
It’s quite funny how for decades the liberal Hollywood chaps have used the Military Industrial Complex as a baddie, plotting to take down good people who threaten their interests and yet if this shady cabal exists it might be the best hope of stopping Trump in his tracks.
You have to imagine that somewhere in a dark room in Washington DC the heads of defence manufacturers and related parties are meeting about how Trump has single handedly destroyed export markets of their most expensive products in a couple of months whilst also announcing cuts to domestic spending on defence.
At what point do they become the plotters of film and tv and try and remove him?
It's also ironic that one of Trumpski's persistent complaints is that Europeans don't buy American cars, while they did buy most of their weapons.
We are still not buying their cars, especially Tesla's, or their weapons.
He freaks out about balance of trade. Well, guess what...
Their cars are exceptionally ugly which doesn’t help. Teslas look shit - apparently because it’s about eking out every bit of efficiency - but I’m sure a few fewer miles per charge for a better looking car isn’t the worst idea.
Looks are 100% subjective though. I think the Model S looks fine and hasn't dated too much despite its immense age. The rest of the range is amorphously bland and clearly way behind the European and Asian competition.
When manufacturers focus group cars they find people will prefer designs that are most like ones with which they are already familiar. Hence endless recycling of design themes with ID.Buzz, Renault 5, 12cilindri, etc.
Fair point, but aren’t designs that get recycled being recycled because they were designs that looked good in one way or another, hence they sold and hence people see and like them.
The Renault 5 update is “cute” as well as nostalgic, the 12 cilindri reminds people of beautiful past front engined Ferraris but the lines create a strange stirring in the pants. They are all good designs whereas the teslas look like they’ve been designed by engineers not artists.
Israel has started another "ground operation" in Gaza.
I am not really sure what they hope to achieve that they didn't achieve last time.
They got several Hamas leaders, including the de facto head Essam a-Da'lees. That's good news isn't it?
Hamas can end the conflict immediately by releasing all hostages and laying down all arms unconditionally - why hasn't it?
Ukraine can end the conflict immediately by surrendering all their territory and laying down arms unconditionally - why haven't they?
You see your statement sounds as ridiculous as mine.
Somewhat different in that Ukraine is the victim of the war of aggression of Russia.
Israel is the victim of attacks from Hamas continuing decades of harassment and seeking to annihilate Israel from the map right from the start.
We should support Ukraine and Israel to win their wars and defeat their enemies.
The government of Israel is seeking to annihilate Palestine. Some in the Israeli government have been explicit about their desire for a Greater Israel. Israel has been in violation of international law for decades, building settlements on occupied land and annexing territory. Israeli Arabs are treated as second-class citizens.
That doesn’t justify Hamas’s 2023 attack, but to paint Israel as entirely the innocent victim is balderdash.
Israel didn't eliminate Palestine, Egypt and Jordan did when they invaded and annexed it in 1948. That's why there's not been a Palestinian state, not Israel's actions.
"International law" is a bunch of worthless piss.
Israeli Arabs are citizens who get to vote democratically, unlike in the rest of the region.
Egypt and Jordan’s actions in 1948 do not justify Israel’s actions today, 77 years later. In 1948, Crimea was part of Russia, but that doesn’t justify Russia’s annexation of the territory from Ukraine in 2014.
If international law is a bunch of worthless piss, then do you oppose the ICC’s arrest warrants for Putin and other Russians? Do you know who else thinks that international law is a bunch of worthless piss? Putin… and Trump. We should oppose Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, we should oppose Russia’s annexation of parts of Ukraine, we should oppose Israel’s annexation of parts of Syria and Palestine.
It’s quite funny how for decades the liberal Hollywood chaps have used the Military Industrial Complex as a baddie, plotting to take down good people who threaten their interests and yet if this shady cabal exists it might be the best hope of stopping Trump in his tracks.
You have to imagine that somewhere in a dark room in Washington DC the heads of defence manufacturers and related parties are meeting about how Trump has single handedly destroyed export markets of their most expensive products in a couple of months whilst also announcing cuts to domestic spending on defence.
At what point do they become the plotters of film and tv and try and remove him?
It's also ironic that one of Trumpski's persistent complaints is that Europeans don't buy American cars, while they did buy most of their weapons.
We are still not buying their cars, especially Tesla's, or their weapons.
He freaks out about balance of trade. Well, guess what...
Their cars are exceptionally ugly which doesn’t help. Teslas look shit - apparently because it’s about eking out every bit of efficiency - but I’m sure a few fewer miles per charge for a better looking car isn’t the worst idea.
Looks are 100% subjective though. I think the Model S looks fine and hasn't dated too much despite its immense age. The rest of the range is amorphously bland and clearly way behind the European and Asian competition.
When manufacturers focus group cars they find people will prefer designs that are most like ones with which they are already familiar. Hence endless recycling of design themes with ID.Buzz, Renault 5, 12cilindri, etc.
Fair point, but aren’t designs that get recycled being recycled because they were designs that looked good in one way or another, hence they sold and hence people see and like them.
The Renault 5 update is “cute” as well as nostalgic, the 12 cilindri reminds people of beautiful past front engined Ferraris but the lines create a strange stirring in the pants. They are all good designs whereas the teslas look like they’ve been designed by engineers not artists.
Holzhausen styled all of the Teslas and is definitely a designer. He did the new Beetle which was a packaging masterpiece, some absolute stinkers for GM and lots of Mazdas. This is why the S looks distinctly Mazda-esque.
Russia’s Engels Airbase, home to a significant portion of the Russian Air Force bomber fleet, suffered a massive explosion after a Ukrainian drone attack this morning.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has suggested allowing bird flu to spread, so as to identify birds that may be immune. Veterinary scientists said that would be inhumane, dangerous and have enormous economic consequences.
RFK jr is an idiot it is hardly news
In previous years, he was an idiot on a limited scale. His idiocy now could lead to millions of deaths worldwide.
Chair of the Danish parliament’s defence committee:
I dont know if there is a kill switch in the F35’s or not [there isn’t]. We obviously can not take your word for it.
As one of the decision makers behind Denmark’s purchase of F35’s, I regret it.
The USA can certainly disable the planes by simple stopping the supply of spare parts. They want to strengthen Russia and weaken Europa and are showing that they are willing to do tremendous damage to peaceful and loyal allies like Canada just because they insist on existing as a country.
I can easily imagine a situation where the USA will demand Greenland from Denmark and will threaten to deactivate our weapons and let Russia attack us when we refuse (which we will even in that situation).
Therefore, buying American weapons is a security risk that we can not run. We will make enormous investments in air defence, fighter jets, artillery and other weapons in the coming years, and we must avoid American weapons if at all possible.
Good for him. At least one European politician appreciates the need for strategic autonomy and will say so.
The calculation is a little different for SKS as he has much more to lose in the shape of Trident. If the US were to withdraw support that would be an ego shattering cataclysm for the English psyche on the level of Italia '90 hence his current policy of unabashed tromboning.
We should be planning how we might change that. If France, Israel and N Korea can manage an independent deterrent it ought not to be that hard. Might take a while though.
Israel has started another "ground operation" in Gaza.
I am not really sure what they hope to achieve that they didn't achieve last time.
They got several Hamas leaders, including the de facto head Essam a-Da'lees. That's good news isn't it?
Hamas can end the conflict immediately by releasing all hostages and laying down all arms unconditionally - why hasn't it?
Ukraine can end the conflict immediately by surrendering all their territory and laying down arms unconditionally - why haven't they?
You see your statement sounds as ridiculous as mine.
Somewhat different in that Ukraine is the victim of the war of aggression of Russia.
Israel is the victim of attacks from Hamas continuing decades of harassment and seeking to annihilate Israel from the map right from the start.
We should support Ukraine and Israel to win their wars and defeat their enemies.
Nope. Hamas are indeed evil but they are not the target of the Israeli attacks. Israel aims to drive all the Palestinians out of Gaza by ethnic cleansing. And they also intend to do the same to the West Bank. You are actively supporting war crimes and genocide.
You're wrong, they are targeting Hamas.
Even Hamas themselves have admitted these recent attacks have taken out some of their leaders, including their 'head of government'.
Hamas leaders are quite legitimate targets, are they not? Yet you refuse to accept that even when spelt out in black and white.
Their PM needs to keep the war going, to delay and distract from elections, an inquiry into the original security failure, and a stack of other political problems. Its target is almost immaterial.
It’s quite funny how for decades the liberal Hollywood chaps have used the Military Industrial Complex as a baddie, plotting to take down good people who threaten their interests and yet if this shady cabal exists it might be the best hope of stopping Trump in his tracks.
You have to imagine that somewhere in a dark room in Washington DC the heads of defence manufacturers and related parties are meeting about how Trump has single handedly destroyed export markets of their most expensive products in a couple of months whilst also announcing cuts to domestic spending on defence.
At what point do they become the plotters of film and tv and try and remove him?
It's also ironic that one of Trumpski's persistent complaints is that Europeans don't buy American cars, while they did buy most of their weapons.
We are still not buying their cars, especially Tesla's, or their weapons.
He freaks out about balance of trade. Well, guess what...
Their cars are exceptionally ugly which doesn’t help. Teslas look shit - apparently because it’s about eking out every bit of efficiency - but I’m sure a few fewer miles per charge for a better looking car isn’t the worst idea.
I don't think they look ugly, actually. Certainly not compared to the prototype new Jag.
The big problem is they've been bought by rather too many people who drive like utter bellends, and that seems unlikely to change.
TBF I haven't particularly noticed Tesla cars being driven badly that much: the crown for that still goes to Audi and BMW.
Buying a new car is the second-most expensive thing most of us will buy, after a house. And you have far more choice with a car than you do with a house, as your choice is much less price and geographically limited. Therefore the car you buy reflects an image of yourself, and this is why so many Tesla drivers are rather (ahem) defensive over their purchase now. Or even rabidly still defending Tesla and Musk.
And no, you cannot really separate Musk and Tesla.
Israel has started another "ground operation" in Gaza.
I am not really sure what they hope to achieve that they didn't achieve last time.
They got several Hamas leaders, including the de facto head Essam a-Da'lees. That's good news isn't it?
Hamas can end the conflict immediately by releasing all hostages and laying down all arms unconditionally - why hasn't it?
Ukraine can end the conflict immediately by surrendering all their territory and laying down arms unconditionally - why haven't they?
You see your statement sounds as ridiculous as mine.
Somewhat different in that Ukraine is the victim of the war of aggression of Russia.
Israel is the victim of attacks from Hamas continuing decades of harassment and seeking to annihilate Israel from the map right from the start.
We should support Ukraine and Israel to win their wars and defeat their enemies.
Nope. Hamas are indeed evil but they are not the target of the Israeli attacks. Israel aims to drive all the Palestinians out of Gaza by ethnic cleansing. And they also intend to do the same to the West Bank. You are actively supporting war crimes and genocide.
You're wrong, they are targeting Hamas.
Even Hamas themselves have admitted these recent attacks have taken out some of their leaders, including their 'head of government'.
Hamas leaders are quite legitimate targets, are they not? Yet you refuse to accept that even when spelt out in black and white.
Their PM needs to keep the war going, to delay and distract from elections, an inquiry into the original security failure, and a stack of other political problems. Its target is almost immaterial.
Chair of the Danish parliament’s defence committee:
I dont know if there is a kill switch in the F35’s or not [there isn’t]. We obviously can not take your word for it.
As one of the decision makers behind Denmark’s purchase of F35’s, I regret it.
The USA can certainly disable the planes by simple stopping the supply of spare parts. They want to strengthen Russia and weaken Europa and are showing that they are willing to do tremendous damage to peaceful and loyal allies like Canada just because they insist on existing as a country.
I can easily imagine a situation where the USA will demand Greenland from Denmark and will threaten to deactivate our weapons and let Russia attack us when we refuse (which we will even in that situation).
Therefore, buying American weapons is a security risk that we can not run. We will make enormous investments in air defence, fighter jets, artillery and other weapons in the coming years, and we must avoid American weapons if at all possible.
We’re beyond that, I think. Europe has a brief chance to get its act together on defence, and that requires an honest discussion. The fact that the US cannot, for the first time in our lifetimes, by considered a reliable ally isn’t something you can ignore.
And it’s not as though they aren’t already aware of that.
‘There is no kill switch’—The F-35 'kill switch' rumor has been debunked.
Chair of the Danish parliament’s defence committee:
I dont know if there is a kill switch in the F35’s or not [there isn’t]. We obviously can not take your word for it.
As one of the decision makers behind Denmark’s purchase of F35’s, I regret it.
The USA can certainly disable the planes by simple stopping the supply of spare parts. They want to strengthen Russia and weaken Europa and are showing that they are willing to do tremendous damage to peaceful and loyal allies like Canada just because they insist on existing as a country.
I can easily imagine a situation where the USA will demand Greenland from Denmark and will threaten to deactivate our weapons and let Russia attack us when we refuse (which we will even in that situation).
Therefore, buying American weapons is a security risk that we can not run. We will make enormous investments in air defence, fighter jets, artillery and other weapons in the coming years, and we must avoid American weapons if at all possible.
Chair of the Danish parliament’s defence committee:
I dont know if there is a kill switch in the F35’s or not [there isn’t]. We obviously can not take your word for it.
As one of the decision makers behind Denmark’s purchase of F35’s, I regret it.
The USA can certainly disable the planes by simple stopping the supply of spare parts. They want to strengthen Russia and weaken Europa and are showing that they are willing to do tremendous damage to peaceful and loyal allies like Canada just because they insist on existing as a country.
I can easily imagine a situation where the USA will demand Greenland from Denmark and will threaten to deactivate our weapons and let Russia attack us when we refuse (which we will even in that situation).
Therefore, buying American weapons is a security risk that we can not run. We will make enormous investments in air defence, fighter jets, artillery and other weapons in the coming years, and we must avoid American weapons if at all possible.
Good for him. At least one European politician appreciates the need for strategic autonomy and will say so.
The calculation is a little different for SKS as he has much more to lose in the shape of Trident. If the US were to withdraw support that would be an ego shattering cataclysm for the English psyche on the level of Italia '90 hence his current policy of unabashed tromboning.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
My principles and rules for life are simpler.
1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.
2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.
3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.
That pretty much covers it really.
Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions
All life is a social function.
Well there are social functions like the local hospital dinner dance
and social functions
such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl
I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter
I don't think any of my rules would be invalidated in such a situation, not that I have been in it.
I would risk assess the situation to determine the best way of minimising harm and maximising successful prosecution of the individuals. I have training in non-violent de-escalation of threatening situations.
Yes you have training in deescalating a gang rape so they all go away embarressed.....sorry dont believe it
You're saying Foxy is a Walter Mitty type? Makes sense
It’s quite funny how for decades the liberal Hollywood chaps have used the Military Industrial Complex as a baddie, plotting to take down good people who threaten their interests and yet if this shady cabal exists it might be the best hope of stopping Trump in his tracks.
You have to imagine that somewhere in a dark room in Washington DC the heads of defence manufacturers and related parties are meeting about how Trump has single handedly destroyed export markets of their most expensive products in a couple of months whilst also announcing cuts to domestic spending on defence.
At what point do they become the plotters of film and tv and try and remove him?
It's also ironic that one of Trumpski's persistent complaints is that Europeans don't buy American cars, while they did buy most of their weapons.
We are still not buying their cars, especially Tesla's, or their weapons.
He freaks out about balance of trade. Well, guess what...
Their cars are exceptionally ugly which doesn’t help. Teslas look shit - apparently because it’s about eking out every bit of efficiency - but I’m sure a few fewer miles per charge for a better looking car isn’t the worst idea.
Looks are 100% subjective though. I think the Model S looks fine and hasn't dated too much despite its immense age. The rest of the range is amorphously bland and clearly way behind the European and Asian competition.
When manufacturers focus group cars they find people will prefer designs that are most like ones with which they are already familiar. Hence endless recycling of design themes with ID.Buzz, Renault 5, 12cilindri, etc.
It's not just familiarity with design; it's also engineering convergence. If you want to make an SUV that will be fuel efficient and carry the loads required, there are only so many practical shapes you can use. Likewise small cars, estate cars, etc, etc. The drag coefficient rules. Which is why so many cars look similar from the outside (especially compared to the 1970s...) but can be very different internally.
Rachel Reeves will announce the biggest spending cuts since austerity at next week’s spring statement after ruling out tax rises as a way to close her budget deficit.
The chancellor will tell MPs next Wednesday that she intends to cut Whitehall budgets by billions of pounds more than previously expected in a move which could mean reductions of as much as 7% for certain departments over the next four years.
But the "rota" evidence is being thoroughly debunked..while the appalling level of care provided by the unit itself is only starting to be revealed..as Dr Lee said if the unit had been a Canadian hospital it would have been shut down..🧐
Chair of the Danish parliament’s defence committee:
I dont know if there is a kill switch in the F35’s or not [there isn’t]. We obviously can not take your word for it.
As one of the decision makers behind Denmark’s purchase of F35’s, I regret it.
The USA can certainly disable the planes by simple stopping the supply of spare parts. They want to strengthen Russia and weaken Europa and are showing that they are willing to do tremendous damage to peaceful and loyal allies like Canada just because they insist on existing as a country.
I can easily imagine a situation where the USA will demand Greenland from Denmark and will threaten to deactivate our weapons and let Russia attack us when we refuse (which we will even in that situation).
Therefore, buying American weapons is a security risk that we can not run. We will make enormous investments in air defence, fighter jets, artillery and other weapons in the coming years, and we must avoid American weapons if at all possible.
Which is why so many cars look similar from the outside (especially compared to the 1970s...) but can be very different internally.
A lot of them are the same inside too.
SKF, the bearing manufacturer, had a division at one time called "car corners" where they made the entire wheel hub and suspension assembly for each corner of a car, for multiple brands
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
My principles and rules for life are simpler.
1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.
2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.
3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.
That pretty much covers it really.
Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions
All life is a social function.
Well there are social functions like the local hospital dinner dance
and social functions
such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl
I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter
I don't think any of my rules would be invalidated in such a situation, not that I have been in it.
I would risk assess the situation to determine the best way of minimising harm and maximising successful prosecution of the individuals. I have training in non-violent de-escalation of threatening situations.
Yes you have training in deescalating a gang rape so they all go away embarressed.....sorry dont believe it
This a problem as well with pb not only are most rich they also have little experience of the worse streets in town
As a hospital doctor, I would imagine that the worst streets in town regularly come to his workplace. Which is why he would have such training, as it is far from unusual for doctors and nurses to get assaulted by patients.
And what he said made sense. The aims are to: *) Minimise harm. *) maximising successful prosecution.
In the scenario mentioned, you may not be able to stop the awful event alone, and going in with your fists is likely not to scare them off, but to make matters worse. What you would do depends on the situation, but calmly evaluating what is going on with those two aims in mind seems sensible. And then, of course, acting.
Chair of the Danish parliament’s defence committee:
I dont know if there is a kill switch in the F35’s or not [there isn’t]. We obviously can not take your word for it.
As one of the decision makers behind Denmark’s purchase of F35’s, I regret it.
The USA can certainly disable the planes by simple stopping the supply of spare parts. They want to strengthen Russia and weaken Europa and are showing that they are willing to do tremendous damage to peaceful and loyal allies like Canada just because they insist on existing as a country.
I can easily imagine a situation where the USA will demand Greenland from Denmark and will threaten to deactivate our weapons and let Russia attack us when we refuse (which we will even in that situation).
Therefore, buying American weapons is a security risk that we can not run. We will make enormous investments in air defence, fighter jets, artillery and other weapons in the coming years, and we must avoid American weapons if at all possible.
Good for him. At least one European politician appreciates the need for strategic autonomy and will say so.
The calculation is a little different for SKS as he has much more to lose in the shape of Trident. If the US were to withdraw support that would be an ego shattering cataclysm for the English psyche on the level of Italia '90 hence his current policy of unabashed tromboning.
SKS doing a photo op on a Trident sub right now
"Our benefit cuts are paying for this."
Always wonder about the phrase 'cuts'. If you have a trend line going up at 10%pa and you decide it has to be 5%, then there are 'cuts'. No one knows what the actual cash outcome will be until they see the changes in the rules applied - and then challenged in court.
If you are on a short leash from the banks and the purchasers of your debt, then you have to be able to show believable plans. I'd call this the Truss Test.
But the "rota" evidence is being thoroughly debunked..while the appalling level of care provided by the unit itself is only starting to be revealed..as Dr Lee said if the unit had been a Canadian hospital it would have been shut down..🧐
That email on the 22nd June sets my nose twitching. It seems a loose pattern was determined, and a 'cause' decided. After that, it came down to evidence that proved the cause, rather than looking for alternative causes.
Something AIUI police detectives are trained against: they may decide they 'know' the suspects of a crime; but they also need to keep their minds open to other suspects.
Chair of the Danish parliament’s defence committee:
I dont know if there is a kill switch in the F35’s or not [there isn’t]. We obviously can not take your word for it.
As one of the decision makers behind Denmark’s purchase of F35’s, I regret it.
The USA can certainly disable the planes by simple stopping the supply of spare parts. They want to strengthen Russia and weaken Europa and are showing that they are willing to do tremendous damage to peaceful and loyal allies like Canada just because they insist on existing as a country.
I can easily imagine a situation where the USA will demand Greenland from Denmark and will threaten to deactivate our weapons and let Russia attack us when we refuse (which we will even in that situation).
Therefore, buying American weapons is a security risk that we can not run. We will make enormous investments in air defence, fighter jets, artillery and other weapons in the coming years, and we must avoid American weapons if at all possible.
We’re beyond that, I think. Europe has a brief chance to get its act together on defence, and that requires an honest discussion. The fact that the US cannot, for the first time in our lifetimes, by considered a reliable ally isn’t something you can ignore.
And it’s not as though they aren’t already aware of that.
‘There is no kill switch’—The F-35 'kill switch' rumor has been debunked.
Of all the stupid things Trump has done, this - along with the tariff madness - seems the most stupid of all
And i am strongly sympathetic (unlike anyone else on here) to a lot of the Trumpite Culture War on Woke. But the damage to alliances, friendships and American tech/industrial exports could be generational, it may never be fixable
I cannot see the logic. And usually I can see some logic to what Trump does - even if it is evil and immoral
Maybe Trump really is a Russian agent, just as Starmer works for China
Starmer being a Chinese agent would be a hell of a story. He's a much better asset than Trump is.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
It is, but the reality is that people have pinch points in their lives. We used to have about six months' income in savings, but the need for a bigger car after child three and some additional costs after an extension cleaned us out - we dipped below £1k for a bit. At present we have about two months' income in savings or a touch less, plus another two, but the latter is savings we use to spread costs over the year - holiday, car maintenance etc - so over the year it will all get spent.
I doubt we'll be in a much better position until either my wife goes back to work (off for childcare at the moment) in which case we can save all her salary, or most and spend a bit more or I land a promotion - or change jobs. If the former, the the tight savings situation will have persisted for likely five years or so
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
My principles and rules for life are simpler.
1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.
2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.
3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.
That pretty much covers it really.
Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions
All life is a social function.
Well there are social functions like the local hospital dinner dance
and social functions
such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl
I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter
I don't think any of my rules would be invalidated in such a situation, not that I have been in it.
I would risk assess the situation to determine the best way of minimising harm and maximising successful prosecution of the individuals. I have training in non-violent de-escalation of threatening situations.
Yes you have training in deescalating a gang rape so they all go away embarressed.....sorry dont believe it
This a problem as well with pb not only are most rich they also have little experience of the worse streets in town
As a hospital doctor, I would imagine that the worst streets in town regularly come to his workplace. Which is why he would have such training, as it is far from unusual for doctors and nurses to get assaulted by patients.
And what he said made sense. The aims are to: *) Minimise harm. *) maximising successful prosecution.
In the scenario mentioned, you may not be able to stop the awful event alone, and going in with your fists is likely not to scare them off, but to make matters worse. What you would do depends on the situation, but calmly evaluating what is going on with those two aims in mind seems sensible. And then, of course, acting.
Quite apart from the fact that a mid sized 60 year old man is clearly not going to be able to physically overpower 5 attackers. It's a situation that needs tackling differently if there is no other help available, and diversion and distraction can be effective in such a scenario.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
My principles and rules for life are simpler.
1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.
2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.
3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.
That pretty much covers it really.
Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions
All life is a social function.
Well there are social functions like the local hospital dinner dance
and social functions
such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl
I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter
I don't think any of my rules would be invalidated in such a situation, not that I have been in it.
I would risk assess the situation to determine the best way of minimising harm and maximising successful prosecution of the individuals. I have training in non-violent de-escalation of threatening situations.
Yes you have training in deescalating a gang rape so they all go away embarressed.....sorry dont believe it
This a problem as well with pb not only are most rich they also have little experience of the worse streets in town
As a hospital doctor, I would imagine that the worst streets in town regularly come to his workplace. Which is why he would have such training, as it is far from unusual for doctors and nurses to get assaulted by patients.
And what he said made sense. The aims are to: *) Minimise harm. *) maximising successful prosecution.
In the scenario mentioned, you may not be able to stop the awful event alone, and going in with your fists is likely not to scare them off, but to make matters worse. What you would do depends on the situation, but calmly evaluating what is going on with those two aims in mind seems sensible. And then, of course, acting.
Indeed.
Given the regularity of thuggery at various A&E, I’m surprised that we don’t have police officers stationed at some of them.
I suppose it is a difference in approach. In London, the Met has opposed the opening of a late night Jazz club in Covent Garden.
On the grounds that it would increase crime - against people leaving the club.
Aside from the victim blaming… surely having the criminals in one place is an advantage?
It’s quite funny how for decades the liberal Hollywood chaps have used the Military Industrial Complex as a baddie, plotting to take down good people who threaten their interests and yet if this shady cabal exists it might be the best hope of stopping Trump in his tracks.
You have to imagine that somewhere in a dark room in Washington DC the heads of defence manufacturers and related parties are meeting about how Trump has single handedly destroyed export markets of their most expensive products in a couple of months whilst also announcing cuts to domestic spending on defence.
At what point do they become the plotters of film and tv and try and remove him?
It's also ironic that one of Trumpski's persistent complaints is that Europeans don't buy American cars, while they did buy most of their weapons.
We are still not buying their cars, especially Tesla's, or their weapons.
He freaks out about balance of trade. Well, guess what...
Their cars are exceptionally ugly which doesn’t help. Teslas look shit - apparently because it’s about eking out every bit of efficiency - but I’m sure a few fewer miles per charge for a better looking car isn’t the worst idea.
I don't think they look ugly, actually. Certainly not compared to the prototype new Jag.
The big problem is they've been bought by rather too many people who drive like utter bellends, and that seems unlikely to change.
TBF I haven't particularly noticed Tesla cars being driven badly that much: the crown for that still goes to Audi and BMW.
Buying a new car is the second-most expensive thing most of us will buy, after a house. And you have far more choice with a car than you do with a house, as your choice is much less price and geographically limited. Therefore the car you buy reflects an image of yourself, and this is why so many Tesla drivers are rather (ahem) defensive over their purchase now. Or even rabidly still defending Tesla and Musk.
And no, you cannot really separate Musk and Tesla.
Chair of the Danish parliament’s defence committee:
I dont know if there is a kill switch in the F35’s or not [there isn’t]. We obviously can not take your word for it.
As one of the decision makers behind Denmark’s purchase of F35’s, I regret it.
The USA can certainly disable the planes by simple stopping the supply of spare parts. They want to strengthen Russia and weaken Europa and are showing that they are willing to do tremendous damage to peaceful and loyal allies like Canada just because they insist on existing as a country.
I can easily imagine a situation where the USA will demand Greenland from Denmark and will threaten to deactivate our weapons and let Russia attack us when we refuse (which we will even in that situation).
Therefore, buying American weapons is a security risk that we can not run. We will make enormous investments in air defence, fighter jets, artillery and other weapons in the coming years, and we must avoid American weapons if at all possible.
We’re beyond that, I think. Europe has a brief chance to get its act together on defence, and that requires an honest discussion. The fact that the US cannot, for the first time in our lifetimes, by considered a reliable ally isn’t something you can ignore.
And it’s not as though they aren’t already aware of that.
‘There is no kill switch’—The F-35 'kill switch' rumor has been debunked.
Of all the stupid things Trump has done, this - along with the tariff madness - seems the most stupid of all
And i am strongly sympathetic (unlike anyone else on here) to a lot of the Trumpite Culture War on Woke. But the damage to alliances, friendships and American tech/industrial exports could be generational, it may never be fixable
I cannot see the logic. And usually I can see some logic to what Trump does - even if it is evil and immoral
Maybe Trump really is a Russian agent, just as Starmer works for China
I think that burning down the USA's international relationships is more damaging more broadly than that. Notably things like JD Vance pissing on the graves of all the soldiers from 50+ countries who served alongside them and were killed, in their support, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the UK that was 230k service people who served and getting on for a thousand who were killed.
Next time they have a 9/11 and ask for help, the response will be crickets.
They will lose something like $70-100bn annually in arms exports (that's 1/3 to 1/2 of present volume), plus all the other pivots away.
Plus Trump has burnt down 80 years of reputational capital.
Domestically, they are destroying the science base of their advanced economy, and their society itself. It's going to be quite apocalyptic.
Chair of the Danish parliament’s defence committee:
I dont know if there is a kill switch in the F35’s or not [there isn’t]. We obviously can not take your word for it.
As one of the decision makers behind Denmark’s purchase of F35’s, I regret it.
The USA can certainly disable the planes by simple stopping the supply of spare parts. They want to strengthen Russia and weaken Europa and are showing that they are willing to do tremendous damage to peaceful and loyal allies like Canada just because they insist on existing as a country.
I can easily imagine a situation where the USA will demand Greenland from Denmark and will threaten to deactivate our weapons and let Russia attack us when we refuse (which we will even in that situation).
Therefore, buying American weapons is a security risk that we can not run. We will make enormous investments in air defence, fighter jets, artillery and other weapons in the coming years, and we must avoid American weapons if at all possible.
We’re beyond that, I think. Europe has a brief chance to get its act together on defence, and that requires an honest discussion. The fact that the US cannot, for the first time in our lifetimes, by considered a reliable ally isn’t something you can ignore.
And it’s not as though they aren’t already aware of that.
‘There is no kill switch’—The F-35 'kill switch' rumor has been debunked.
Of all the stupid things Trump has done, this - along with the tariff madness - seems the most stupid of all
And i am strongly sympathetic (unlike anyone else on here) to a lot of the Trumpite Culture War on Woke. But the damage to alliances, friendships and American tech/industrial exports could be generational, it may never be fixable
I cannot see the logic. And usually I can see some logic to what Trump does - even if it is evil and immoral
Maybe Trump really is a Russian agent, just as Starmer works for China
I think that burning down the USA's international relationships is more damaging more broadly than that. Notably things like JD Vance pissing on the graves of all the soldiers from 50+ countries who served alongside them and were killed, in their support, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the UK that was 230k service people who served and getting on for a thousand who were killed.
Next time they have a 9/11 and ask for help, the response will be crickets.
They will lose something like $70-100bn annually in arms exports (that's 1/3 to 1/2 of present volume), plus all the other pivots away.
Plus Trump has burnt down 80 years of reputational capital.
Domestically, they are destroying the science base of their advanced economy, and their society itself. It's going to be quite apocalyptic.
Incidentally, had you copped that Uruguay is assessed by Freedom House as the equal 11th most "free" country in the world - above most of Europe. A nugget for your article, if not yet written?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
My principles and rules for life are simpler.
1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.
2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.
3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.
That pretty much covers it really.
Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions
All life is a social function.
Well there are social functions like the local hospital dinner dance
and social functions
such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl
I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter
I don't think any of my rules would be invalidated in such a situation, not that I have been in it.
I would risk assess the situation to determine the best way of minimising harm and maximising successful prosecution of the individuals. I have training in non-violent de-escalation of threatening situations.
Yes you have training in deescalating a gang rape so they all go away embarressed.....sorry dont believe it
This a problem as well with pb not only are most rich they also have little experience of the worse streets in town
As a hospital doctor, I would imagine that the worst streets in town regularly come to his workplace. Which is why he would have such training, as it is far from unusual for doctors and nurses to get assaulted by patients.
And what he said made sense. The aims are to: *) Minimise harm. *) maximising successful prosecution.
In the scenario mentioned, you may not be able to stop the awful event alone, and going in with your fists is likely not to scare them off, but to make matters worse. What you would do depends on the situation, but calmly evaluating what is going on with those two aims in mind seems sensible. And then, of course, acting.
Quite apart from the fact that a mid sized 60 year old man is clearly not going to be able to physically overpower 5 attackers. It's a situation that needs tackling differently if there is no other help available, and diversion and distraction can be effective in such a scenario.
Well as I was in my mid 30's at the time, but don't regret it. Phoned the police waded in, two ran 3 gave me a kicking but I did some damage too. Maybe you could stand by I couldn't
Two excellent local by election results at Harborough and Abbots Langley yesterday. This follows the Finchley by election a couple of weeks ago where a similar pattern emerged. Conservatives may do much better on May1st than everyone thinks.
Comments
Buying a new car is the second-most expensive thing most of us will buy, after a house. And you have far more choice with a car than you do with a house, as your choice is much less price and geographically limited. Therefore the car you buy reflects an image of yourself, and this is why so many Tesla drivers are rather (ahem) defensive over their purchase now. Or even rabidly still defending Tesla and Musk.
And no, you cannot really separate Musk and Tesla.
So if you drive a Tesla, you're an utter wanker.
When manufacturers focus group cars they find people will prefer designs that are most like ones with which they are already familiar. Hence endless recycling of design themes with ID.Buzz, Renault 5, 12cilindri, etc.
Russia’s Engels Airbase, home to a significant portion of the Russian Air Force bomber fleet, suffered a massive explosion after a Ukrainian drone attack this morning.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1902575582501543943
All those cars being damaged and his company losing value. Just so much money lost, it must be devastating.
What is it that people say when an unthinkable tragedy happens?
Oh yes.
“Thoughts and prayers”
This is the UK so we can say something different.
Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.
'It ain't half hot, Mum.'
Labour seem to have too many intellectuals which leads to internal stress within the Party. The Conservatives seem the opposite, denuded of serious thinkers to be replaced by the cult of the Market. It's a poor collection if IDS is the only one who is serious not just about policy but how to apply those policies.
The Renault 5 update is “cute” as well as nostalgic, the 12 cilindri reminds people of beautiful past front engined Ferraris but the lines create a strange stirring in the pants. They are all good designs whereas the teslas look like they’ve been designed by engineers not artists.
If international law is a bunch of worthless piss, then do you oppose the ICC’s arrest warrants for Putin and other Russians? Do you know who else thinks that international law is a bunch of worthless piss? Putin… and Trump. We should oppose Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, we should oppose Russia’s annexation of parts of Ukraine, we should oppose Israel’s annexation of parts of Syria and Palestine.
Might take a while though.
Those figures on Three Rivers do not make sense but apparently these do
https://x.com/MarxdeMorais/status/1902618742544097326?t=vL067QhqJdWOyLELcBPtNA&s=19
NEW THREAD
SKF, the bearing manufacturer, had a division at one time called "car corners" where they made the entire wheel hub and suspension assembly for each corner of a car, for multiple brands
And what he said made sense. The aims are to:
*) Minimise harm.
*) maximising successful prosecution.
In the scenario mentioned, you may not be able to stop the awful event alone, and going in with your fists is likely not to scare them off, but to make matters worse. What you would do depends on the situation, but calmly evaluating what is going on with those two aims in mind seems sensible. And then, of course, acting.
If you are on a short leash from the banks and the purchasers of your debt, then you have to be able to show believable plans. I'd call this the Truss Test.
Something AIUI police detectives are trained against: they may decide they 'know' the suspects of a crime; but they also need to keep their minds open to other suspects.
I doubt we'll be in a much better position until either my wife goes back to work (off for childcare at the moment) in which case we can save all her salary, or most and spend a bit more or I land a promotion - or change jobs. If the former, the the tight savings situation will have persisted for likely five years or so
Given the regularity of thuggery at various A&E, I’m surprised that we don’t have police officers stationed at some of them.
I suppose it is a difference in approach. In London, the Met has opposed the opening of a late night Jazz club in Covent Garden.
On the grounds that it would increase crime - against people leaving the club.
Aside from the victim blaming… surely having the criminals in one place is an advantage?
For the UK that was 230k service people who served and getting on for a thousand who were killed.
Next time they have a 9/11 and ask for help, the response will be crickets.
They will lose something like $70-100bn annually in arms exports (that's 1/3 to 1/2 of present volume), plus all the other pivots away.
Plus Trump has burnt down 80 years of reputational capital.
Domestically, they are destroying the science base of their advanced economy, and their society itself. It's going to be quite apocalyptic.
(Taiwan is ~top 25.)
https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort=desc&order=Total Score and Status