Ban hammer out being wielded with a vengeance this weekend. Presume the offending issue isn't mentioned publicly to avoid it being picked up by the Googlebots.
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas and rightly so
There has been something of a longstanding taboo against taking out national leaders.
For better, or for worse, it looks as though that is being extinguished.
That will have global implications.
What taboo?
The IRA targeted Thatcher.
Many leaders have over time been killed, and many executed following wars or revolutions too. Its been difficult to get at leaders typically.
It's one thing if a terrorist group does it, another if a state does it.
If a state is doing it as a part of war, then its a just target.
Don't go to war if you don't want to fight. Leadership are legitimate, just targets.
A thousand years of western ethics says otherwise.
But you’ve already said that you don’t accept the logical basis for their analysis.
Western ethics have always been dodgy, they were fine with imperialisim, slavery, feudalism....oh look who defined western ethics....it was people in the lead and you hold this up as an example of we should listen to them on this because those most interested in not having a target on them put it in western ethics
I always thought it had less to do with ethics and more to do with self interest. What political leader would want to claim that assassination was a legtimate tool of statecraft? Given that they would be one of the targets.
Which is my point, knowing they would immediately be a legitimate target for the other side by declaring war might make them more cautious about doing so
Why do you imagine that would be confined to situations where war has been declared ?
You're advocating the throwing aside of a norm which is essential to democracies - and far less so to repressive states.
why do you imagine I care? To make yourself leader is to volunteer to be in the firing line. Frankly we would be better off is leaders felt vulnerable
So you're celebrating today's shooting in the US ?
Idiocy.
The two things are not comparable.
Shooting a leader in peace time is not OK, but shooting a cop or soldier is not either.
In war? Then any just target is valid. Leaders are just targets, like soldiers, civilians are not.
I see the situation as somewhat similar to the UK and Libya, under Gadaffi. Both countries were very close to war with each other, and assassinating Gadaffi would have been legitimate.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas
Israel's actions are not out of the blue.
You'll never accept Israel's right to self-defence will you?
I do.
This is not self defence. This is an attack on a hostile nearby country but represents a significant escalation.
It is absolutely 100% self-defence.
Iran is seeking to destroy Israel as an explicit objective. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
You don't need to wait until you've been killed to act in self-defence.
Have you been appointed spokesperson for the IDF? You seem very invested in another country's issues - a country that is quite able to defend itself. It's almost a full time job.
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas
Israel's actions are not out of the blue.
You'll never accept Israel's right to self-defence will you?
I do.
This is not self defence. This is an attack on a hostile nearby country but represents a significant escalation.
It is absolutely 100% self-defence.
Iran is seeking to destroy Israel as an explicit objective. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
You don't need to wait until you've been killed to act in self-defence.
Have you been appointed spokesperson for the IDF? You seem very invested in another country's issues - a country that is quite able to defend itself. It's almost a full time job.
No, discussing politics is just a hobby.
People discuss other country's issues all the time.
Funny how people get to criticise Israel and it is supposed to slide without comment, but defend them and suddenly there must be some alternative agenda? Why is that?
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
UK moving planes to middle east to help with the recent outbreak of peace
When push and shove came everyone knew we'd still be the US, and by extension Israel's lapdogs. So much for Lammy and Starmer putting Israel on the naughty step in parliament
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas
Israel's actions are not out of the blue.
You'll never accept Israel's right to self-defence will you?
I do.
This is not self defence. This is an attack on a hostile nearby country but represents a significant escalation.
It is absolutely 100% self-defence.
Iran is seeking to destroy Israel as an explicit objective. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
You don't need to wait until you've been killed to act in self-defence.
Have you been appointed spokesperson for the IDF? You seem very invested in another country's issues - a country that is quite able to defend itself. It's almost a full time job.
No, discussing politics is just a hobby.
People discuss other country's issues all the time.
Funny how people get to criticise Israel and it is supposed to slide without comment, but defend them and suddenly there must be some alternative agenda? Why is that?
I say what I believe, because I believe it.
Is your belief a spiritual one? Or is a belief based on first hand experience of the living or visiting the different areas under discussion. In other words how much credence should we put on your beliefs?
UK moving planes to middle east to help with the recent outbreak of peace
When push and shove came everyone knew we'd still be the US, and by extension Israel's lapdogs. So much for Lammy and Starmer putting Israel on the naughty step in parliament
UK moving planes to middle east to help with the recent outbreak of peace
When push and shove came everyone knew we'd still be the US, and by extension Israel's lapdogs. So much for Lammy and Starmer putting Israel on the naughty step in parliament
Lol, Starmer does as his bosses tell him.
Incidentally his alleged bosses have been meeting in Sweden this week. I wonder if he'll get some new instructions.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Are we allowed to say that Starmer is terrible at politics?
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Are we allowed to say that Starmer is terrible at politics?
It seems remarkably silly to me to mock a belief in ghosts. All religious and spiritual belief, and indeed a belief in extra-terrestrial beings, includes the idea that there is a world unseen but very present, that occasionally interacts with our earthbound physical world.
There must be some beliefs which don't think God intervenes, surely? That he only created.
There are many beliefs centred around a non interventionist God. Much easier once you separate your creator from the Yahweh character in the OT
Aristotle; most Unitarians two examples. Also some strands of Anglican theology, a bit out of fashion at the moment.
However, the big intervention by God more or less universally posited by theists is creation ex nihilo itself. Interventions come no bigger.
I prefer Pratchett's version. In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.
I am not religious, at least not anymore. The evidence that God exists is slight. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument that he does. What is the difference between God and the scientist who grows bacteria in a test tube. Like God the scientist has the power of life and death over the contents of that test tube. He can destroy them at any point. He can feed them or starve them. Should the bacteria worship the scientist? Is that power worthy of worship? I don't think so. Even if God created the Universe which gave us life I see no reason to say thank you.
I realised he was nothing but trouble from the start. A complete wrong un 😇
Too Big, Too Welsh, Too G!
All we need is Sunil banned too, and we will know Dura Ace is holding the ban hammer tonight, for the long needed weeding out of those not made of the right stuff.
It seems remarkably silly to me to mock a belief in ghosts. All religious and spiritual belief, and indeed a belief in extra-terrestrial beings, includes the idea that there is a world unseen but very present, that occasionally interacts with our earthbound physical world.
There must be some beliefs which don't think God intervenes, surely? That he only created.
There are many beliefs centred around a non interventionist God. Much easier once you separate your creator from the Yahweh character in the OT
Aristotle; most Unitarians two examples. Also some strands of Anglican theology, a bit out of fashion at the moment.
However, the big intervention by God more or less universally posited by theists is creation ex nihilo itself. Interventions come no bigger.
I prefer Pratchett's version. In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.
I am not religious, at least not anymore. The evidence that God exists is slight. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument that he does. What is the difference between God and the scientist who grows bacteria in a test tube. Like God the scientist has the power of life and death over the contents of that test tube. He can destroy them at any point. He can feed them or starve them. Should the bacteria worship the scientist? Is that power worthy of worship? I don't think so. Even if God created the Universe which gave us life I see no reason to say thank you.
I realised he was nothing but trouble from the start. A complete wrong un 😇
Too Big, Too Welsh, Too G!
All we need is Sunil banned too, and we will know Dura Ace is holding the ban hammer tonight, for the long needed weeding out of those not made of the right stuff.
Yeah but despite Dura Ace having achieved 4000 bans per hour in testing it's back to the garage having exploded on ban #1.
I realised he was nothing but trouble from the start. A complete wrong un 😇
Too Big, Too Welsh, Too G!
All we need is Sunil banned too, and we will know Dura Ace is holding the ban hammer tonight, for the long needed weeding out of those not made of the right stuff.
Yeah but despite Dura Ace having achieved 4000 bans per hour in testing it's back to the garage having exploded on ban #1.
Oh FFS - I said 'yeah but' - could you direct me to a cliff please?
I realised he was nothing but trouble from the start. A complete wrong un 😇
Too Big, Too Welsh, Too G!
All we need is Sunil banned too, and we will know Dura Ace is holding the ban hammer tonight, for the long needed weeding out of those not made of the right stuff.
Yeah but despite Dura Ace having achieved 4000 bans per hour in testing it's back to the garage having exploded on ban #1.
Oh FFS - I said 'yeah but' - could you direct me to a cliff please?
I realised he was nothing but trouble from the start. A complete wrong un 😇
Too Big, Too Welsh, Too G!
All we need is Sunil banned too, and we will know Dura Ace is holding the ban hammer tonight, for the long needed weeding out of those not made of the right stuff.
Yeah but despite Dura Ace having achieved 4000 bans per hour in testing it's back to the garage having exploded on ban #1.
Oh FFS - I said 'yeah but' - could you direct me to a cliff please?
I agree with Morris Dancer's earlier comment: would we be so keen to mock a politician or a subset of the electorate who believe in a god (or local equivalent)? Because I don't see any functional difference between believing in ghosts or believing in a god.
I believe in not mocking people.
This is my take.
We shouldn't mock people for sincerely held beliefs that do no harm. Belief in ghosts is valid and cannot be disproven. As with God and any number of other things. Mocking the beliefs is unkind and marginalises people. I don't believe in any of the above, but that's neither here not there.
However, I do think there's something to be said about people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. A Christian or Muslim or Hindu mocking someone who believes in ghosts deserves to have their own ludicrous belief system mocked in equal measure.
So we have to prove ghosts don’t exist? See Russel’s teapot.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas
Israel's actions are not out of the blue.
You'll never accept Israel's right to self-defence will you?
I do.
This is not self defence. This is an attack on a hostile nearby country but represents a significant escalation.
It is absolutely 100% self-defence.
Iran is seeking to destroy Israel as an explicit objective. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
You don't need to wait until you've been killed to act in self-defence.
Have you been appointed spokesperson for the IDF? You seem very invested in another country's issues - a country that is quite able to defend itself. It's almost a full time job.
No, discussing politics is just a hobby.
People discuss other country's issues all the time.
Funny how people get to criticise Israel and it is supposed to slide without comment, but defend them and suddenly there must be some alternative agenda? Why is that?
I say what I believe, because I believe it.
Is your belief a spiritual one? Or is a belief based on first hand experience of the living or visiting the different areas under discussion. In other words how much credence should we put on your beliefs?
My belief is based on my principles, reasoning and logic which I'm happy to explain. I have my reasons for my beliefs, as we all do.
It is possibly influenced by the fact my best friend growing up was a Jew who lost grandparents to the Holocaust. I firmly believe as a strong point of principle in Israel's right to exist as the only Jewish state on the planet.
If you disagree with what I say, no reason not to say how or why, no need to make it personal.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
On topic, I find it interesting that the closer people get to potentially becoming ghosts, the less they believe in them. For some reason I would have thought it would be the other way round.
I saw a ghost once and still don't believe in them
I smelled one once. She was called Mary. She died in childbirth 200 years ago
No reason all senses can't be involved, I still suspect they are more of the video replay type than a conscious thinking spirit kind
That was the conclusion I came to as well. Somehow, in ways we don't understand yet, an image can be caught in time. It doesn't interact with our time, it is not animate and yet it is there. No idea how, of course.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
You and I both know that’s not how politics works. Saying you will rebel and actually walking into the lobby are two very different things. Abstentions are more likely with rebels bought off by the Whips (so to speak).
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
But what is the smart politics here? Short term? Mid to long term? I’ve been on ConHome this week pushing the argument, for the Conservatives to come back to public confidence they mustn’t screechingly oppose everything the government is doing. The Conservatives need to keep in mind exactly what they will do in government from 4th May 2029 - the policy platform they will say the country needs and will campaign on in the year or more before May 3rd 29 - and important not to vote against that platform right now.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
The Tories have repeatedly argued that the cost of welfare is far too large and needs to be cut. If they vote against Labour's proposals, they should tell us what, and how, they will cut welfare.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
But what is the smart politics here? Short term? Mid to long term? I’ve been on ConHome this week pushing the argument, for the Conservatives to come back to public confidence they mustn’t screechingly oppose everything the government is doing. The Conservatives need to keep in mind exactly what they will do in government from 4th May 2029 - the policy platform they will say the country needs and will campaign on in the year or more before May 3rd 29 - and important not to vote against that platform right now.
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas
Israel's actions are not out of the blue.
You'll never accept Israel's right to self-defence will you?
I do.
This is not self defence. This is an attack on a hostile nearby country but represents a significant escalation.
It is absolutely 100% self-defence.
Iran is seeking to destroy Israel as an explicit objective. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
You don't need to wait until you've been killed to act in self-defence.
Have you been appointed spokesperson for the IDF? You seem very invested in another country's issues - a country that is quite able to defend itself. It's almost a full time job.
No, discussing politics is just a hobby.
People discuss other country's issues all the time.
Funny how people get to criticise Israel and it is supposed to slide without comment, but defend them and suddenly there must be some alternative agenda? Why is that?
I say what I believe, because I believe it.
For the record - since we disagree so fundamentally about Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank - I would just like to point out that I think Israel are absolutely right in the action they have taken over Iran this week and also think it is shameful that Starmer says the UK won't help defend Israel against missile attack as we did in the last round of exchanges.
At every turn Starmer's foreign policy decisions are a disaster.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
You and I both know that’s not how politics works. Saying you will rebel and actually walking into the lobby are two very different things. Abstentions are more likely with rebels bought off by the Whips (so to speak).
Ok let's do some maths on it if we assume for now Kemi pulls the trigger on voting against (and we will forget about tellers and pairing etc for now too)
Against 121 Tories (120 plus the suspended mo) 72 Liberal Democrats 9 SNP 4 Plaid 4 Greens 5 Magic Grandpa grouping NI?? Leave for now Total 215 with 11 NI unknown
There are 412 Lab and other indy 5 Reform will vote yes
Needs 100 rebels or 50 rebels and 100 abstentions or thereabouts
Id expect at least 30 to 40 active no votes based on what's been said from the awkward squad and a few very unhappy commentors.
Might get tasty but OK, I concede defeat is perhaps a long shot here.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas
Israel's actions are not out of the blue.
You'll never accept Israel's right to self-defence will you?
I do.
This is not self defence. This is an attack on a hostile nearby country but represents a significant escalation.
It is absolutely 100% self-defence.
Iran is seeking to destroy Israel as an explicit objective. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
You don't need to wait until you've been killed to act in self-defence.
Have you been appointed spokesperson for the IDF? You seem very invested in another country's issues - a country that is quite able to defend itself. It's almost a full time job.
No, discussing politics is just a hobby.
People discuss other country's issues all the time.
Funny how people get to criticise Israel and it is supposed to slide without comment, but defend them and suddenly there must be some alternative agenda? Why is that?
I say what I believe, because I believe it.
For the record - since we disagree so fundamentally about Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank - I would just like to point out that I think Israel are absolutely right in the action they have taken over Iran this week and also think it is shameful that Starmer says the UK won't help defend Israel against missile attack as we did in the last round of exchanges.
At every turn Starmer's foreign policy decisions are a disaster.
More, to my mind, that practising shooting down ballistic missiles is very much in the U.K. interest.
If the Iranians are providing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of target practise, we really should take advantage.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
The Tories have repeatedly argued that the cost of welfare is far too large and needs to be cut. If they vote against Labour's proposals, they should tell us what, and how, they will cut welfare.
Not really, just oppose the bill on the basis its insufficient, or too cruel, or doesn't have dragons and tadpoles. What oppositions always do.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
But what is the smart politics here? Short term? Mid to long term? I’ve been on ConHome this week pushing the argument, for the Conservatives to come back to public confidence they mustn’t screechingly oppose everything the government is doing. The Conservatives need to keep in mind exactly what they will do in government from 4th May 2029 - the policy platform they will say the country needs and will campaign on in the year or more before May 3rd 29 - and important not to vote against that platform right now.
They are there to oppose the government and provide alternatives. There is widespread concern about the impact of Kendalls awful plans. They need to do their job on behalf of those who stand to be dreadfully affected by the proposals. They can propose their solution when there's a GE due
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
It seems remarkably silly to me to mock a belief in ghosts. All religious and spiritual belief, and indeed a belief in extra-terrestrial beings, includes the idea that there is a world unseen but very present, that occasionally interacts with our earthbound physical world.
There must be some beliefs which don't think God intervenes, surely? That he only created.
There are many beliefs centred around a non interventionist God. Much easier once you separate your creator from the Yahweh character in the OT
Aristotle; most Unitarians two examples. Also some strands of Anglican theology, a bit out of fashion at the moment.
However, the big intervention by God more or less universally posited by theists is creation ex nihilo itself. Interventions come no bigger.
I prefer Pratchett's version. In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.
I am not religious, at least not anymore. The evidence that God exists is slight. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument that he does. What is the difference between God and the scientist who grows bacteria in a test tube. Like God the scientist has the power of life and death over the contents of that test tube. He can destroy them at any point. He can feed them or starve them. Should the bacteria worship the scientist? Is that power worthy of worship? I don't think so. Even if God created the Universe which gave us life I see no reason to say thank you.
The question of whether there exists the creator of the universe etc - the god of classical monotheism - which personally I believe, is completely separate from questions of what arises from that belief. In particular it is totally separate from whether one is or ought to be religious. God existing and worship worthiness (and what would count as worship) are separate subjects.
BTW, the problem is not that the 'evidence' or grounds for god is slight; it's colossal, the problem is that the 'evidence' or grounds against is colossal too.
It seems remarkably silly to me to mock a belief in ghosts. All religious and spiritual belief, and indeed a belief in extra-terrestrial beings, includes the idea that there is a world unseen but very present, that occasionally interacts with our earthbound physical world.
There must be some beliefs which don't think God intervenes, surely? That he only created.
There are many beliefs centred around a non interventionist God. Much easier once you separate your creator from the Yahweh character in the OT
Aristotle; most Unitarians two examples. Also some strands of Anglican theology, a bit out of fashion at the moment.
However, the big intervention by God more or less universally posited by theists is creation ex nihilo itself. Interventions come no bigger.
I prefer Pratchett's version. In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.
I am not religious, at least not anymore. The evidence that God exists is slight. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument that he does. What is the difference between God and the scientist who grows bacteria in a test tube. Like God the scientist has the power of life and death over the contents of that test tube. He can destroy them at any point. He can feed them or starve them. Should the bacteria worship the scientist? Is that power worthy of worship? I don't think so. Even if God created the Universe which gave us life I see no reason to say thank you.
The question of whether there exists the creator of the universe etc - the god of classical monotheism - which personally I believe, is completely separate from questions of what arises from that belief. In particular it is totally separate from whether one is or ought to be religious. God existing and worship worthiness (and what would count as worship) are separate subjects.
BTW, the problem is not that the 'evidence' or grounds for god is slight; it's colossal, the problem is that the 'evidence' or grounds against is colossal too.
It seems remarkably silly to me to mock a belief in ghosts. All religious and spiritual belief, and indeed a belief in extra-terrestrial beings, includes the idea that there is a world unseen but very present, that occasionally interacts with our earthbound physical world.
There must be some beliefs which don't think God intervenes, surely? That he only created.
There are many beliefs centred around a non interventionist God. Much easier once you separate your creator from the Yahweh character in the OT
Aristotle; most Unitarians two examples. Also some strands of Anglican theology, a bit out of fashion at the moment.
However, the big intervention by God more or less universally posited by theists is creation ex nihilo itself. Interventions come no bigger.
I prefer Pratchett's version. In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.
I am not religious, at least not anymore. The evidence that God exists is slight. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument that he does. What is the difference between God and the scientist who grows bacteria in a test tube. Like God the scientist has the power of life and death over the contents of that test tube. He can destroy them at any point. He can feed them or starve them. Should the bacteria worship the scientist? Is that power worthy of worship? I don't think so. Even if God created the Universe which gave us life I see no reason to say thank you.
The question of whether there exists the creator of the universe etc - the god of classical monotheism - which personally I believe, is completely separate from questions of what arises from that belief. In particular it is totally separate from whether one is or ought to be religious. God existing and worship worthiness (and what would count as worship) are separate subjects.
BTW, the problem is not that the 'evidence' or grounds for god is slight; it's colossal, the problem is that the 'evidence' or grounds against is colossal too.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
But what is the smart politics here? Short term? Mid to long term? I’ve been on ConHome this week pushing the argument, for the Conservatives to come back to public confidence they mustn’t screechingly oppose everything the government is doing. The Conservatives need to keep in mind exactly what they will do in government from 4th May 2029 - the policy platform they will say the country needs and will campaign on in the year or more before May 3rd 29 - and important not to vote against that platform right now.
To vote now on the basis of the 2029 manifesto would be great. But for that to be the case Tories would need a quite specific set of ideas not only realistic but also distinctive from the centrist consensus of a huge state straining to keep an very expensive thing as cheap as possible on the backs of some of the quite needy.
Kemi gets quite sharp when asked about anything difficult and specific in the way of policy or principle, so I don't suppose she or her MPs have the slightest idea what will be their USPs in 2029.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
But what is the smart politics here? Short term? Mid to long term? I’ve been on ConHome this week pushing the argument, for the Conservatives to come back to public confidence they mustn’t screechingly oppose everything the government is doing. The Conservatives need to keep in mind exactly what they will do in government from 4th May 2029 - the policy platform they will say the country needs and will campaign on in the year or more before May 3rd 29 - and important not to vote against that platform right now.
They are there to oppose the government and provide alternatives. There is widespread concern about the impact of Kendalls awful plans. They need to do their job on behalf of those who stand to be dreadfully affected by the proposals. They can propose their solution when there's a GE due
It's just a feeling about the spirit of the age, but it seems to me that such public as pays atention is uninterested in opposition as such; the need of the times is for worked out better solutions, which cannot be based on magic money. Part of the complete uninterest there is in the Tories is in exactly that area. Not only have they done sub optimally, they have not redeemed themselves by being very obviously cleverer, sharper and more on the policy ball than the government. Bad at communicating; little to communicate. Compare this with Labour pre 1997.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
But what is the smart politics here? Short term? Mid to long term? I’ve been on ConHome this week pushing the argument, for the Conservatives to come back to public confidence they mustn’t screechingly oppose everything the government is doing. The Conservatives need to keep in mind exactly what they will do in government from 4th May 2029 - the policy platform they will say the country needs and will campaign on in the year or more before May 3rd 29 - and important not to vote against that platform right now.
They are there to oppose the government and provide alternatives. There is widespread concern about the impact of Kendalls awful plans. They need to do their job on behalf of those who stand to be dreadfully affected by the proposals. They can propose their solution when there's a GE due
It's just a feeling about the spirit of the age, but it seems to me that such public as pays atention is uninterested in opposition as such; the need of the times is for worked out better solutions, which cannot be based on magic money. Part of the complete uninterest there is in the Tories is in exactly that area. Not only have they done sub optimally, they have not redeemed themselves by being very obviously cleverer, sharper and more on the policy ball than the government. Bad at communicating; little to communicate. Compare this with Labour pre 1997.
I still think PIP could bring the government down in its current form. The Tories need to vote against and force resignations of,at very least, Kendall and Timms
You do remember the Conservatives have just 121 MPs. To get the Government to lose a vote in the Commons will require a lot more than Kemi’s plucky little band.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
Tories plus LDs plus Greens, NI, Plaid and even a good portion of the 100 (plus) mooted rebels will defeat the bill (the other parties mentioned are all already against it i believe) I don't hopecast. If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
But what is the smart politics here? Short term? Mid to long term? I’ve been on ConHome this week pushing the argument, for the Conservatives to come back to public confidence they mustn’t screechingly oppose everything the government is doing. The Conservatives need to keep in mind exactly what they will do in government from 4th May 2029 - the policy platform they will say the country needs and will campaign on in the year or more before May 3rd 29 - and important not to vote against that platform right now.
They are there to oppose the government and provide alternatives. There is widespread concern about the impact of Kendalls awful plans. They need to do their job on behalf of those who stand to be dreadfully affected by the proposals. They can propose their solution when there's a GE due
Bottom Line, General Elections in UK are different - electing PM, put a party in charge of economy and foreign affairs. Everything else in between just risk free NOTA elections. So at what point are you building your GE credibility?
The answer is right now.
Conservatives have been in office most the last hundred years, just learn from how stupid Labour have been in opposition - opposing everything done by UK government leads to zero governmental credibility in key elections like 87, 92, 2015, 2019, etc.
If the Conservatives don’t promise to reverse every cut, don’t promise to reverse every tax take, they won’t have an election torpedoing black hole - they will actually thrash Reform who will have the supermassive unelectable black hole.
Not just financially - the Chagos Deal, the Conservative noises up to now give impression they would act on this deal and make big changes to it, for it is so bad, and so will be called on what the action is and what those changes are when campaigning for GE 2029. The unserious Conservative Party position on Chagos Deal so far never mentions India - India and USA in the room negotiating it not China - nor UK’s “friend of Garcia” discount on nuclear weaponry and shared security - despite all those things being everything to do with why the deal was made.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas
Israel's actions are not out of the blue.
You'll never accept Israel's right to self-defence will you?
I do.
This is not self defence. This is an attack on a hostile nearby country but represents a significant escalation.
It is absolutely 100% self-defence.
Iran is seeking to destroy Israel as an explicit objective. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
You don't need to wait until you've been killed to act in self-defence.
Have you been appointed spokesperson for the IDF? You seem very invested in another country's issues - a country that is quite able to defend itself. It's almost a full time job.
No, discussing politics is just a hobby.
People discuss other country's issues all the time.
Funny how people get to criticise Israel and it is supposed to slide without comment, but defend them and suddenly there must be some alternative agenda? Why is that?
I say what I believe, because I believe it.
Is your belief a spiritual one? Or is a belief based on first hand experience of the living or visiting the different areas under discussion. In other words how much credence should we put on your beliefs?
My Israeli citizen friend sees this as Bibi trying to stay in power and bemoans the right-wing propaganda that infects the Israeli media.
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
And Leon has been talking to the locals in the Costaguana village, and reports anecdotally they are all for Reform.
https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570 On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.
“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.
All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas
Israel's actions are not out of the blue.
You'll never accept Israel's right to self-defence will you?
I do.
This is not self defence. This is an attack on a hostile nearby country but represents a significant escalation.
It is absolutely 100% self-defence.
Iran is seeking to destroy Israel as an explicit objective. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
You don't need to wait until you've been killed to act in self-defence.
Have you been appointed spokesperson for the IDF? You seem very invested in another country's issues - a country that is quite able to defend itself. It's almost a full time job.
No, discussing politics is just a hobby.
People discuss other country's issues all the time.
Funny how people get to criticise Israel and it is supposed to slide without comment, but defend them and suddenly there must be some alternative agenda? Why is that?
I say what I believe, because I believe it.
Is your belief a spiritual one? Or is a belief based on first hand experience of the living or visiting the different areas under discussion. In other words how much credence should we put on your beliefs?
My Israeli citizen friend sees this as Bibi trying to stay in power and bemoans the right-wing propaganda that infects the Israeli media.
The ban on discussions about the grooming story is still in place. People have been told enough times, given how past discussions have turned into a mess that potentially puts PB at risk.
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Online safety act is probably the worst bit of legislation ever made here
To be fair, the issue is a couple of posters who turned discussions of such matters into the Turner Diaries.
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
I also think this is going to become a position that is more and more difficult to hold as the rest of the media is filled with news of the Enquiry. Fully understand the current concerns by TSE and OGH but I think something will eventually have to give.
I am hopeful that we can discuss it again in the future but enjoin some posters from commenting upon the story.
But that day isn't today.
Yes, that seems like a sensible solution.
You can test it with "Eabhal" and "20mph" if you so wish
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
And Leon has been talking to the locals in the Costaguana village, and reports anecdotally they are all for Reform.
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil. “After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.” “You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
President Putin called this morning to very nicely wish me a Happy Birthday, but to more importantly, talk about Iran, a country he knows very well. We talked at length. Much less time was spent talking about Russia/Ukraine, but that will be for next week. He is doing the planned prisoner swaps - large numbers of prisoners are being exchanged, immediately, from both sides. The call lasted approximately 1 hour. He feels, as do I, this war in Israel-Iran should end, to which I explained, his war should also end.
Comments
That is a risk we are not prepared to take now particularly when the Online Safety Act is now in place.
The alternative is closing PB down as OGH made clear.
The spam trap automatically bans people when certain words are used.
Surely quoting a news article doesn't breach the OSA?
People discuss other country's issues all the time.
Funny how people get to criticise Israel and it is supposed to slide without comment, but defend them and suddenly there must be some alternative agenda? Why is that?
I say what I believe, because I believe it.
I am not religious, at least not anymore. The evidence that God exists is slight. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument that he does. What is the difference between God and the scientist who grows bacteria in a test tube. Like God the scientist has the power of life and death over the contents of that test tube. He can destroy them at any point. He can feed them or starve them. Should the bacteria worship the scientist? Is that power worthy of worship? I don't think so. Even if God created the Universe which gave us life I see no reason to say thank you.
We don’t need to hear that.
But.
I reckon 120 Labour MPs voting against the Government might do it - do you envisage such an eventuality or are you just hopecasting for the Tories?
https://x.com/nypost/status/1933938109474820519
Minnesota gunman sought in deadly shootings of lawmaker, her husband identified as former appointee of Tim Walz
It is possibly influenced by the fact my best friend growing up was a Jew who lost grandparents to the Holocaust. I firmly believe as a strong point of principle in Israel's right to exist as the only Jewish state on the planet.
If you disagree with what I say, no reason not to say how or why, no need to make it personal.
I don't hopecast.
If the Tories back the bill (as they implied they might) or abstain then the evil witch Kendall will get her cull
Actual sane people discussing the legal and moral issues - a @Cyclefree header, for example - weren’t the problem.
@BristOliver
·
6h
Craft beer pubs projecting a 75% fall in takings tonight, as the new six hour Adam Curtis film hits iplayer
At every turn Starmer's foreign policy decisions are a disaster.
Against
121 Tories (120 plus the suspended mo)
72 Liberal Democrats
9 SNP
4 Plaid
4 Greens
5 Magic Grandpa grouping
NI?? Leave for now
Total 215 with 11 NI unknown
There are
412 Lab and other indy
5 Reform will vote yes
Needs 100 rebels or 50 rebels and 100 abstentions or thereabouts
Id expect at least 30 to 40 active no votes based on what's been said from the awkward squad and a few very unhappy commentors.
Might get tasty but OK, I concede defeat is perhaps a long shot here.
What is it about shit politicians who expend vast amounts of political capital defending the indefensible, and then even more defending the U-turn?
There are issues and public moods which make some things likely inevitable. Better to try and get ahead of the curve than behind.
If the Iranians are providing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of target practise, we really should take advantage.
What oppositions always do.
B*m
B*tty
Kn*ckers
Kn*ckers
W**-W**
Semprini
But I still love the idea that quoting Keir Starmer is a banning offence. I think we should have more rules like this
https://www.nokings.org/watch
Sir K*** S******
For ease of typing
SK3*
“Spooky goings on in this thread.” Quipped Sunil.
“After 50,000 posts i’m a senior contributor.” Replied Big_G. “Total disgrace to ban me.”
“You should see the stunning teenage girls in this Costaguana village,” said Leon. “And I’m sure their fathers are trying to sell them to me.”
BTW, the problem is not that the 'evidence' or grounds for god is slight; it's colossal, the problem is that the 'evidence' or grounds against is colossal too.
Instant ban that.
Kemi gets quite sharp when asked about anything difficult and specific in the way of policy or principle, so I don't suppose she or her MPs have the slightest idea what will be their USPs in 2029.
But that day isn't today.
The answer is right now.
Conservatives have been in office most the last hundred years, just learn from how stupid Labour have been in opposition - opposing everything done by UK government leads to zero governmental credibility in key elections like 87, 92, 2015, 2019, etc.
If the Conservatives don’t promise to reverse every cut, don’t promise to reverse every tax take, they won’t have an election torpedoing black hole - they will actually thrash Reform who will have the supermassive unelectable black hole.
Not just financially - the Chagos Deal, the Conservative noises up to now give impression they would act on this deal and make big changes to it, for it is so bad, and so will be called on what the action is and what those changes are when campaigning for GE 2029. The unserious Conservative Party position on Chagos Deal so far never mentions India - India and USA in the room negotiating it not China - nor UK’s “friend of Garcia” discount on nuclear weaponry and shared security - despite all those things being everything to do with why the deal was made.
That poor lad from the factory last week has been off sick ever since.
Fancy that.
As if Britain has a ship.
You can test it with "Eabhal" and "20mph" if you so wish
deploymentvacation.President Putin called this morning to very nicely wish me a Happy Birthday, but to more importantly, talk about Iran, a country he knows very well. We talked at length. Much less time was spent talking about Russia/Ukraine, but that will be for next week. He is doing the planned prisoner swaps - large numbers of prisoners are being exchanged, immediately, from both sides. The call lasted approximately 1 hour. He feels, as do I, this war in Israel-Iran should end, to which I explained, his war should also end.