"A single ticket-holder from Ireland has won the 250 million euro EuroMillions jackpot, the Irish National Lottery said. Ireland's lottery said it was the "biggest ever EuroMillions jackpot," and its chief executive said it would reveal the winning location soon. The winning numbers from Tuesday's draw - which had rolled over several times - were 13, 22, 23, 44 and 49, with lucky stars 3 and 5."
F1: The Movie – Brad Pitt’s spectacular racing drama is Barbie for dads Thrilling action scenes and a puppyishly charming leading man turn this officially branded Formula One film into rousing entertainment https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/f1-the-movie-review-brad-pitt/
That will keep @Morris_Dancer quiet for a couple of hours.
Not planning on watching it. I hardly ever go to the cinema and watching pretend F1 rather than actual F1 just doesn't seem appealing.
F1: pushed for time but contemplating backing Russell each way at 8 in Austria. Still concerned over the power unit.
Surely you have watched “Rush”. Fantastic film about F1, well really a character study of James Hunt/Nikki Lauder but still F1.
I haven't seen that so will watch out for it. Even though I am a motor racing fan I find most films about it utterly dull. My one exception is Le Mans 66 (or in America called Ford vs Ferrari). It actually got lots of award nominations, including Oscar nominations, helped by the fact that it had 2 big stars, and you know, an actual story.
Carroll Shelby was an interesting character.
For a nano second I actually considered buying a GT40 replica recently, but common sense prevailed. You need a metre either side of you to open the doors and reversing would need someone outside guiding you.
Thing is, this isn't weapons of mass destruction. It's about Netanyahu's need to shore up his right flank to secure his government so it doesn't collapse (the TLDR version is because Ben-Gvir is basically a mad racist, and he's not even the worst of them). The moment it does he will end up in prison.
There might be legitimate reasons to attack Iran, particularly since we all know it's behind Hamas, Hezbollah and is closely linked to Russia. Saving the career and freedom of a tenth rate Fascist crook is not one of them.
It all comes back to Trump doesn't it?
I'm no starry-eyed admirer of Trump, but Netanyahu is a lot worse.
If only its neighbours had agreed peace with Israel in the 45 years preceding Netanyahu coming to power.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
The strong opposition of most Labour voters to UK involvement in protecting Israel and the opposition of most Republican voters as well as the even stronger opposition of most Democrats to the US protecting Israel from Iranian attacks will make Starmer and Trump wary of involvement.
Voters do clearly want negotiations with Iran to end their nuclear programme which is what they will try and focus on
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Do you think all of our allies should have nuclear weapons? Germany? The Netherlands? Japan? South Korea? Saudi Arabia?
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
They have, according to the various international agencies, 400Kg of 60% enriched uranium. And are trying to enrich it to 80%
You can build a bomb out of 60%, though the efficiency would be rubbish and you’d probably get a yield of a kiloton or so.
Little know fact - the Hiroshima bomb, which yielded 16Kt was (average) enriched to about 80%. The enrichment in different parts of the bullet and target actually varied.
But, analysis shows it was designed for 92% enriched material. Which would have give a yield of about 32Kt.
There is little documentation of who made the decision to “go early” - but the yield/enrichment was a frequently discussed by Oppenheimer and Groves.
A 16 kiloton warhead would wipe out Tel Aviv. Nukemap has it at 100,000 deaths and 250,000 injured on an airburst
Of course we don't want Iran to have nukes, but does MAD not apply here as well?
If Iran used a nuke on Israel, or was suspected to have done so, then Tehran would be destroyed in pretty short order.
The Iranian leadership are all being wiped out by Israel already. They may conclude that they have nothing to lose.
One of the reasons for not declaring regime change a war aim is to give the enemy leadership a possible future if they choose to stop fighting. There are circumstances where it makes sense to have unconditional surrender and regime change a war aim, but if you have such a maximalist approach it invites the enemy to defend themselves with every means at their disposal.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There was a nuclear deal with Iran. Trump blew it up, likely because Obama negotiated it. Now Iran has every incentive to develop a nuclear weapon to make the attacks stop.
Why would Iran trust Trump and Netanyahu to keep to a deal? Netanyahu is calling for regime change anyway.
Well, this is partly one of the reasons why going in and attacking the facilities is (probably) a one way ticket to attempted regime change, because once you confirm you can (and will) attack then leaving the government in place only heightens the risk that they will try again in time, and we’ll all be back here in 10 or so years.
The situations are different, but see the similar debate around the Gulf War and the ‘need’ to ‘finish the job’ in 2003.
"A single ticket-holder from Ireland has won the 250 million euro EuroMillions jackpot, the Irish National Lottery said. Ireland's lottery said it was the "biggest ever EuroMillions jackpot," and its chief executive said it would reveal the winning location soon. The winning numbers from Tuesday's draw - which had rolled over several times - were 13, 22, 23, 44 and 49, with lucky stars 3 and 5."
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Do you think all of our allies should have nuclear weapons? Germany? The Netherlands? Japan? South Korea? Saudi Arabia?
That's up to them, I don't think we should go to war to stop our allies building their defences.
I do think we should go to war to stop our enemies from getting them though.
I would be most uncomfortable from your list with Saudi Arabia, who are not a democracy, having them. I don't feel that we should be allies with the Saudis though that's another question - if Iran were neutered there'd be less reason for us to side with the House of Saud.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
F1: The Movie – Brad Pitt’s spectacular racing drama is Barbie for dads Thrilling action scenes and a puppyishly charming leading man turn this officially branded Formula One film into rousing entertainment https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/f1-the-movie-review-brad-pitt/
That will keep @Morris_Dancer quiet for a couple of hours.
Not planning on watching it. I hardly ever go to the cinema and watching pretend F1 rather than actual F1 just doesn't seem appealing.
F1: pushed for time but contemplating backing Russell each way at 8 in Austria. Still concerned over the power unit.
Surely you have watched “Rush”. Fantastic film about F1, well really a character study of James Hunt/Nikki Lauder but still F1.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
I thought he was saying we should have attacked France in 1955.
"A single ticket-holder from Ireland has won the 250 million euro EuroMillions jackpot, the Irish National Lottery said. Ireland's lottery said it was the "biggest ever EuroMillions jackpot," and its chief executive said it would reveal the winning location soon. The winning numbers from Tuesday's draw - which had rolled over several times - were 13, 22, 23, 44 and 49, with lucky stars 3 and 5."
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There was a nuclear deal with Iran. Trump blew it up, likely because Obama negotiated it. Now Iran has every incentive to develop a nuclear weapon to make the attacks stop.
Why would Iran trust Trump and Netanyahu to keep to a deal? Netanyahu is calling for regime change anyway.
Well, this is partly one of the reasons why going in and attacking the facilities is (probably) a one way ticket to attempted regime change, because once you confirm you can (and will) attack then leaving the government in place only heightens the risk that they will try again in time, and we’ll all be back here in 10 or so years.
The situations are different, but see the similar debate around the Gulf War and the ‘need’ to ‘finish the job’ in 2003.
Similar in the sense that Iran being 'on the verge of developing a nuke' for 35 years is as much of a threat as Saddam's WMDs?
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
Its not murder and voting for women to be human incubators of pregnancies they don't want is nothing to be proud of either.
The deadline for when abortion should be an option should be when delivery becomes an alternative option, that's not 24 weeks, the NHS won't give voluntary deliveries (as opposed to medically required ones) at 24 weeks as its premature and not safe.
Nobody should be compelled by law to carry on with a pregnancy they don't want. If you wish to insist on delivery as an alternative to abortion then I'm OK with that, the pregnancy is still ended at that point so that's reasonable, but to pretend that "viability" means that abortion isn't OK, but delivery isn't OK either at that stage, is not consistent.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
Good morning
I am unsure of this change but certainly I assume any abortion will be undertaken by qualified medics
I would also suggest the mothers could have regrets later for the rest of their life
I do not agree with the arbitrary abortion of a child because it is an inconvenience
"A single ticket-holder from Ireland has won the 250 million euro EuroMillions jackpot, the Irish National Lottery said. Ireland's lottery said it was the "biggest ever EuroMillions jackpot," and its chief executive said it would reveal the winning location soon. The winning numbers from Tuesday's draw - which had rolled over several times - were 13, 22, 23, 44 and 49, with lucky stars 3 and 5."
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
Its just the good guy that can defend itself?
Israel can defend itself. Yes.
They can.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't support our friends and allies who are doing the right thing.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
Who is more of a threat to us? Israel, the Arabs, or Iran? I would argue Israel is the least threatening of the three, and Iran the most. The Arabs, at the very least, hold some values which don't necessarily align with those of the west.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Do you think all of our allies should have nuclear weapons? Germany? The Netherlands? Japan? South Korea? Saudi Arabia?
Yes, yes, they already have the capability just need 10 minutes, they need 10 minutes, fuck no
"A single ticket-holder from Ireland has won the 250 million euro EuroMillions jackpot, the Irish National Lottery said. Ireland's lottery said it was the "biggest ever EuroMillions jackpot," and its chief executive said it would reveal the winning location soon. The winning numbers from Tuesday's draw - which had rolled over several times - were 13, 22, 23, 44 and 49, with lucky stars 3 and 5."
Sadly true but in a magical alternative universe he isn’t, wins the big one and gets to live out his days as a neighbour of Roger in the south of France watching women in bikinis on the beach and dancing terribly in cheesy Euro nightclubs having relocated the other residents of the Craggy Island Parochial House with him.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
Its not murder and voting for women to be human incubators of pregnancies they don't want is nothing to be proud of either.
The deadline for when abortion should be an option should be when delivery becomes an alternative option, that's not 24 weeks, the NHS won't give voluntary deliveries (as opposed to medically required ones) at 24 weeks as its premature and not safe.
Nobody should be compelled by law to carry on with a pregnancy they don't want. If you wish to insist on delivery as an alternative to abortion then I'm OK with that, the pregnancy is still ended at that point so that's reasonable, but to pretend that "viability" means that abortion isn't OK, but delivery isn't OK either at that stage, is not consistent.
At 24 weeks, the foetus is generally viable without medical support. But the risks to foetus and mother are much higher than waiting.
Which is why doctors try and wait. But will go ahead with a delivery if there is no alternative.
One thing that has not been mentioned is that long before 24 weeks, the difference between a delivery and an abortion narrows massively - in terms of medical seriousness and actual methods.
Love to see a Venn diagram based on the number of men here passionately defending women’s rights over abortion against those passionately telling women, including some on PB, to suck it up and accept cross dressing men into their spaces 😉
Radio Five Live is discussing this website, which I'd never heard of before.
"The creator of Tattle Life could face a raft of new lawsuits from stars defamed on his website after he was unmasked as the King of Trolls, experts told MailOnline today. Vegan influencer Sebastian Bond, 43, was exposed after a couple won a £300,000 libel payout over vile claims posted about them on the so-called 'trolls' paradise', which he quietly founded eight years ago. Tattle Life became an unchecked breeding ground for bullying, ‘doxxing’ and outright lies."
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
Who is more of a threat to us? Israel, the Arabs, or Iran? I would argue Israel is the least threatening of the three, and Iran the most. The Arabs, at the very least, hold some values which don't necessarily align with those of the west.
At present, I don't think any of them are a threat to us, and we should not get involved for that reason. If there was a compelling moral reason why we should get involved - as there was in 1945 after the Holocaust - that would be different. I was brought up to support Israel for precisely that reason (my mother worked for UNRRA and talked about the death camps) However, that generation is by and large no longer with us, and the current Israeli leadership has IMO forfeited any hereditary right to "support, no matter what".
I'm not suggesting that we should support the vile Hamas. But we aren't compelled to support either side and we shouldn't.
Now that those two titans of moral authority, Leon and Shazza, are of one mind on this, there's no doubt there will be rioting on the streets.
Sharron Davies MBE @sharrond62 11h My grand daughter was born at 37 weeks. I’m horrified we have made it legal in the uk for healthy babies to be terminated up to the day before they’re due. Let’s hope the House of Lords stops this. So euthanasia for our old & infirm & now anyone can get rid of their baby with no repercussions. This does not represent public opinion why are these things happening! I don’t recognise my country anymore😔
At least Davies MBE has an excuse (she's a fekkin dimwit).
That's almost as bad as picking up some pieces of paper that another man dropped. Scandalous.
We went to a wedding in Thailand and Mrs C started dancing when the Thai National Anthem was played. Stopped in some embarrassment when she realised everyone else was standing to attention.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
Love to see a Venn diagram based on the number of men here passionately defending women’s rights over abortion against those passionately telling women, including some on PB, to suck it up and accept cross dressing men into their spaces 😉
I think I would make this Venn diagram more interesting than you expect, but I think that's unfair.
Abortion rights is about the right to have control over your own body.
Whether trans people have the right of access to the single-sex space of their choice is a matter of balancing conflicting rights.
There isn't the contradiction that you are implying.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
One argument is that demonstrating the ability to defend against ballistic weapons is part of *our* defence posture.
Life testing is expensive - the Iranians are providing targets for free.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
Who is more of a threat to us? Israel, the Arabs, or Iran? I would argue Israel is the least threatening of the three, and Iran the most. The Arabs, at the very least, hold some values which don't necessarily align with those of the west.
Leaving aside the ghastliness of the regime I would say Iran is the country in the region with the greatest potential usefulness as an ally in geopolitical terms, followed by Turkey. I never thought the desire to have Iran as our enemy was a particularly sensible one. Obviously if it is actually your enemy you have to deal with it but giving people an out is often wise.
Israel on the other hand is a geopolitical problem as it is the cause of much instability in an already volatile region. I don't think realpolitik should drive every foreign policy decision but as Israel doesn't really share my values more than the others I don't see any reason to do something special for them.
To be clear I'm taking about the states not the people. I know some really lovely Israelis and Iranians.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
The reason for the 24 week number is that the foetus is generally viable on its own at that time.
So remove it from the womb and it lives without (much) medical intervention.
So, as these things go, a fairly rational demarcation point.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
Its not murder and voting for women to be human incubators of pregnancies they don't want is nothing to be proud of either.
The deadline for when abortion should be an option should be when delivery becomes an alternative option, that's not 24 weeks, the NHS won't give voluntary deliveries (as opposed to medically required ones) at 24 weeks as its premature and not safe.
Nobody should be compelled by law to carry on with a pregnancy they don't want. If you wish to insist on delivery as an alternative to abortion then I'm OK with that, the pregnancy is still ended at that point so that's reasonable, but to pretend that "viability" means that abortion isn't OK, but delivery isn't OK either at that stage, is not consistent.
I'd have a lot more sympathy with voluntarily early delivery that than what the law has just become. If Carla Foster's baby (who triggered all this) had been induced, it would almost certainly have survived with little more intervention than feeding. As it was, she deliberately killed it. Not of course because she didn't like being pregnant (she'd left it six months after discovering she was pregnant!), but because she didn't want the child, and was too selfish to deliver it alive and give it up for adoption.
Shows interesting things about Reform's support - highest proportion strongly support, but also one of the higher portions strongly opposing. Could be some interesting foreign affairs tensions were Reform to get into power.
It would be fascinating to know the motivations of both factions, particularly strongly oppose: anti-Israel or pro-not-getting-involved in a quarrel of far away countries, between people of whom we know nothing?
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
Love to see a Venn diagram based on the number of men here passionately defending women’s rights over abortion against those passionately telling women, including some on PB, to suck it up and accept cross dressing men into their spaces 😉
I think I would make this Venn diagram more interesting than you expect, but I think that's unfair.
Abortion rights is about the right to have control over your own body.
Whether trans people have the right of access to the single-sex space of their choice is a matter of balancing conflicting rights.
There isn't the contradiction that you are implying.
Oh there is. Women’s rights is merely a fig leaf for some people’s personal prejudices. Their views are fine as they stand however let’s not pretend there’s a moral determination to support women’s right here by many.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
Its not murder and voting for women to be human incubators of pregnancies they don't want is nothing to be proud of either.
The deadline for when abortion should be an option should be when delivery becomes an alternative option, that's not 24 weeks, the NHS won't give voluntary deliveries (as opposed to medically required ones) at 24 weeks as its premature and not safe.
Nobody should be compelled by law to carry on with a pregnancy they don't want. If you wish to insist on delivery as an alternative to abortion then I'm OK with that, the pregnancy is still ended at that point so that's reasonable, but to pretend that "viability" means that abortion isn't OK, but delivery isn't OK either at that stage, is not consistent.
I'd have a lot more sympathy with voluntarily early delivery that than what the law has just become. If Carla Foster's baby (who triggered all this) had been induced, it would almost certainly have survived with little more intervention than feeding. As it was, she deliberately killed it. Not of course because she didn't like being pregnant (she'd left it six months after discovering she was pregnant!), but because she didn't want the child, and was too selfish to deliver it alive and give it up for adoption.
So why do we change the law to protect someone like her ?
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
No, I think the point is we should have invaded France in 1959?
Obviously we would have invaded the States in WW2, if we'd not been too busy.
Love to see a Venn diagram based on the number of men here passionately defending women’s rights over abortion against those passionately telling women, including some on PB, to suck it up and accept cross dressing men into their spaces 😉
I think I would make this Venn diagram more interesting than you expect, but I think that's unfair.
Abortion rights is about the right to have control over your own body.
Whether trans people have the right of access to the single-sex space of their choice is a matter of balancing conflicting rights.
There isn't the contradiction that you are implying.
In addition: those who are against abortion, who also agreed with Farage ten years ago about women not breastfeeding in public. That was a fun conversation on here...
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
Its not murder and voting for women to be human incubators of pregnancies they don't want is nothing to be proud of either.
The deadline for when abortion should be an option should be when delivery becomes an alternative option, that's not 24 weeks, the NHS won't give voluntary deliveries (as opposed to medically required ones) at 24 weeks as its premature and not safe.
Nobody should be compelled by law to carry on with a pregnancy they don't want. If you wish to insist on delivery as an alternative to abortion then I'm OK with that, the pregnancy is still ended at that point so that's reasonable, but to pretend that "viability" means that abortion isn't OK, but delivery isn't OK either at that stage, is not consistent.
I'd have a lot more sympathy with voluntarily early delivery that than what the law has just become. If Carla Foster's baby (who triggered all this) had been induced, it would almost certainly have survived with little more intervention than feeding. As it was, she deliberately killed it. Not of course because she didn't like being pregnant (she'd left it six months after discovering she was pregnant!), but because she didn't want the child, and was too selfish to deliver it alive and give it up for adoption.
If it had, it might have, but it wasn't born yet so its moot.
People have the right to be selfish and do actions you dislike in a free society.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Starmer disagrees:
'Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, said on Saturday that he sent combat and support aircraft to the region. The decision, he said, came after what he described as a “good and constructive” conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “that included discussions about the safety and security of Israel, as you would expect, between two allies.”'
I'd say Israel being an ally is as fixed a trope with successive UK PMs as the special relationship, and with about as much utility.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
Who is more of a threat to us? Israel, the Arabs, or Iran? I would argue Israel is the least threatening of the three, and Iran the most. The Arabs, at the very least, hold some values which don't necessarily align with those of the west.
At present, I don't think any of them are a threat to us, and we should not get involved for that reason. If there was a compelling moral reason why we should get involved - as there was in 1945 after the Holocaust - that would be different. I was brought up to support Israel for precisely that reason (my mother worked for UNRRA and talked about the death camps) However, that generation is by and large no longer with us, and the current Israeli leadership has IMO forfeited any hereditary right to "support, no matter what".
I'm not suggesting that we should support the vile Hamas. But we aren't compelled to support either side and we shouldn't.
I think that’s a fair point, and I’d agree up to a point. I don’t however want to be in a position where we’re waiting until Iran IS an imminent threat to us and we’re saying ‘why didn’t we deal with this sooner?’ I’m not sure I’m keen on sending British troops out to occupy Iran or anything drastic like that. But if Israel has the opportunity to put back Iran’s ability to threaten us, I have no objection to helping that along a bit.
Iran (and to a lesser extent, some of the Arabs – though it varies hugely from state to state) isn’t normal regimes like that of the UK or France, or even Russia. They get their instructions straight from a furious and vengeful god. They can’t be reasoned with. When they say ‘death to the west’, that isn’t just a slogan: they mean it. That’s not to say that’s true of normal Iranians. But normal Iranians aren’t the ones in charge.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Starmer disagrees:
'Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, said on Saturday that he sent combat and support aircraft to the region. The decision, he said, came after what he described as a “good and constructive” conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “that included discussions about the safety and security of Israel, as you would expect, between two allies.”'
I'd say Israel being an ally is as fixed a trope with successive UK PMs as the special relationship, and with about as much utility.
Starmer is right. Allies as a concept goes beyond formal treaty-bound alliances.
Not everything has to be written in a treaty or law to make it so, it just makes a refreshing change that Starmer can tell that in this instance and doesn't need it written down in a report for someone to inform him that we're allies.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
The reason for the 24 week number is that the foetus is generally viable on its own at that time.
So remove it from the womb and it lives without (much) medical intervention.
So, as these things go, a fairly rational demarcation point.
So long as removal from the womb is an option.
What is not reasonable is telling women they must continue with a pregnancy they don't want, because the foetus is viable but its not safe to deliver it yet.
If a woman does not wish to be pregnant, then either deliver it, or abort it. Don't insist they continue to be human incubators for an unwanted pregnancy.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
Good morning
I am unsure of this change but certainly I assume any abortion will be undertaken by qualified medics
I would also suggest the mothers could have regrets later for the rest of their life
I do not agree with the arbitrary abortion of a child because it is an inconvenience
Women post-24 weeks pregnancy are not arbitrarily aborting children because they are an inconvenience, so you have nothing to worry about there.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
It's a marvellous testament to the healing process of time that Britain has forgiven the kidnapping, torture, hanging and booby trapping of our troops by Israeli terrorists.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Starmer disagrees:
'Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, said on Saturday that he sent combat and support aircraft to the region. The decision, he said, came after what he described as a “good and constructive” conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “that included discussions about the safety and security of Israel, as you would expect, between two allies.”'
I'd say Israel being an ally is as fixed a trope with successive UK PMs as the special relationship, and with about as much utility.
Israel is an ally to the USA , and we're an ally to the USA (NATO, various USAF bases here). It's a second order relationship if you will, a friend of a friend.
Tbh it doesn't much matter what we do, as ever the septics are key.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
It's a marvellous testament to the healing process of time that Britain has forgiven the kidnapping, torture, hanging and booby trapping of our troops by Israeli terrorists.
I don't think it would be controversial to say we consider Germany and Japan allies? And there is a long list of countries we've had difficult relations with since then whom we have no problem cooperating with now.
In any case, an ally doesn't mean a friend: it just means we have a common enemy so it is in our interest to cooperate.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
The reason for the 24 week number is that the foetus is generally viable on its own at that time.
So remove it from the womb and it lives without (much) medical intervention.
So, as these things go, a fairly rational demarcation point.
Around half of babies born at 24 weeks survive, and they only do so with considerable medical intervention. Survival rates in low income countries are closer to 0%.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There was a nuclear deal with Iran. Trump blew it up, likely because Obama negotiated it. Now Iran has every incentive to develop a nuclear weapon to make the attacks stop.
Why would Iran trust Trump and Netanyahu to keep to a deal? Netanyahu is calling for regime change anyway.
Well, this is partly one of the reasons why going in and attacking the facilities is (probably) a one way ticket to attempted regime change, because once you confirm you can (and will) attack then leaving the government in place only heightens the risk that they will try again in time, and we’ll all be back here in 10 or so years.
The situations are different, but see the similar debate around the Gulf War and the ‘need’ to ‘finish the job’ in 2003.
Yes, I definitely worry we are on a path to war. My feeling would be that the UK should stay out of it. We should have stayed out of the Iraq disaster as well imo.
I don’t quite know how much difference this makes to voting intention - probably very little - but there is an “awkward kid trying to be cool/tough” vibe to Starmer which really lands poorly.
Rishi had it too - though not quite as gratingly bad.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
It's a marvellous testament to the healing process of time that Britain has forgiven the kidnapping, torture, hanging and booby trapping of our troops by Israeli terrorists.
I don't think it would be controversial to say we consider Germany and Japan allies? And there is a long list of countries we've had difficult relations with since then whom we have no problem cooperating with now.
In any case, an ally doesn't mean a friend: it just means we have a common enemy so it is in our interest to cooperate.
Yes, but Germany and Japan seem to have given up their evil ways.....
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
That's the religious-you talking. You are poisoning the well by using the term 'murder' before any discussion can begin.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
That's the religious-you talking. You are poisoning the well by using the term 'murder' before any discussion can begin.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
It's a marvellous testament to the healing process of time that Britain has forgiven the kidnapping, torture, hanging and booby trapping of our troops by Israeli terrorists.
I don't think it would be controversial to say we consider Germany and Japan allies? And there is a long list of countries we've had difficult relations with since then whom we have no problem cooperating with now.
In any case, an ally doesn't mean a friend: it just means we have a common enemy so it is in our interest to cooperate.
As Putin's Russia demonstrates, common enemy if very much in the eye of which beholder happens to be squatting in the White House at any given moment..
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
That's the religious-you talking. You are poisoning the well by using the term 'murder' before any discussion can begin.
I agree with HYUFD and I'm not religious.
Ok that's interesting. I'm at loggerheads with another poster that I usually agree with.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
One argument is that demonstrating the ability to defend against ballistic weapons is part of *our* defence posture.
Life testing is expensive - the Iranians are providing targets for free.
Iran is certainly more hostile to us than Isreal is.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
The reason for the 24 week number is that the foetus is generally viable on its own at that time.
So remove it from the womb and it lives without (much) medical intervention.
So, as these things go, a fairly rational demarcation point.
Around half of babies born at 24 weeks survive, and they only do so with considerable medical intervention. Survival rates in low income countries are closer to 0%.
Yes I think 'without (much) medical intervention' is a stretch.
To take an extreme example, causing the death of a foetus whilst in the birth canal of a normal labour is now decriminalised for the would be mother. Whilst it's overwhemingly likely such a woman should be in a secure mental institute due to a very distressed mental state, that's something psychiatrists could advise the CPS on. De facto I think this is an area where maybe guidance should have changed rather than the law.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
It's a marvellous testament to the healing process of time that Britain has forgiven the kidnapping, torture, hanging and booby trapping of our troops by Israeli terrorists.
I don't think it would be controversial to say we consider Germany and Japan allies? And there is a long list of countries we've had difficult relations with since then whom we have no problem cooperating with now.
In any case, an ally doesn't mean a friend: it just means we have a common enemy so it is in our interest to cooperate.
Yes, but Germany and Japan seem to have given up their evil ways.....
Neither Germany nor Japan are surrounded by countries who have spent 50 years denying their right to exist and who have on two occasions all attacked them simultaneously in order to bring about this wish that they don't exist.
I don’t quite know how much difference this makes to voting intention - probably very little - but there is an “awkward kid trying to be cool/tough” vibe to Starmer which really lands poorly.
Rishi had it too - though not quite as gratingly bad.
Actually I think most of the video is good, apart from its beginning which I jinxed the other day by posting that at least Starmer has not cosplayed soldiers in a tank.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Israel is an informal ally and only because along with the US the three nations are opposed to Iran. When the Iranians burn flags it's Israel, US and UK flags that get burned. Whether we like it or not Iran despises the UK and that means we should support Israel in their efforts against Iran, though probably with intelligence rather than hard military assets.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
The reason for the 24 week number is that the foetus is generally viable on its own at that time.
So remove it from the womb and it lives without (much) medical intervention.
So, as these things go, a fairly rational demarcation point.
So long as removal from the womb is an option.
What is not reasonable is telling women they must continue with a pregnancy they don't want, because the foetus is viable but its not safe to deliver it yet.
If a woman does not wish to be pregnant, then either deliver it, or abort it. Don't insist they continue to be human incubators for an unwanted pregnancy.
As with so many things, it’s about balancing conflicting rights.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
Its not murder and voting for women to be human incubators of pregnancies they don't want is nothing to be proud of either.
The deadline for when abortion should be an option should be when delivery becomes an alternative option, that's not 24 weeks, the NHS won't give voluntary deliveries (as opposed to medically required ones) at 24 weeks as its premature and not safe.
Nobody should be compelled by law to carry on with a pregnancy they don't want. If you wish to insist on delivery as an alternative to abortion then I'm OK with that, the pregnancy is still ended at that point so that's reasonable, but to pretend that "viability" means that abortion isn't OK, but delivery isn't OK either at that stage, is not consistent.
I'd have a lot more sympathy with voluntarily early delivery that than what the law has just become. If Carla Foster's baby (who triggered all this) had been induced, it would almost certainly have survived with little more intervention than feeding. As it was, she deliberately killed it. Not of course because she didn't like being pregnant (she'd left it six months after discovering she was pregnant!), but because she didn't want the child, and was too selfish to deliver it alive and give it up for adoption.
The law hasn’t “just become” anything different to what it was yesterday. Another one who doesn’t understand parliamentary procedure!
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
Good morning
... I assume any abortion will be undertaken by qualified medics...
Apparently, in this specific piece of legislation, this is not specified. It simply states that a woman who procures an abortion will not be prosecuted under the existing legislation. It does not specify the method nor the presence of medical personnel.
Love to see a Venn diagram based on the number of men here passionately defending women’s rights over abortion against those passionately telling women, including some on PB, to suck it up and accept cross dressing men into their spaces 😉
Though the converse applies as well.
There is also the tension in the worldview that supports the Right To Life when it comes to abortion, but also the Right To Kill when it comes to guns and the death penalty.
People are a mess and morality is rarely simple.
Knowing what we know now, I wonder if the world would have been a better place if Radio 4 had never commissioned The Moral Maze.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
One argument is that demonstrating the ability to defend against ballistic weapons is part of *our* defence posture.
Life testing is expensive - the Iranians are providing targets for free.
Iran is certainly more hostile to us than Isreal is.
As I explained to some of the more fun chaps at UCL*, if you shout “Death To The West” all the time, some Westerners are going to get the impression you are not their best friends.
It’s fascinating how really small shifts in voting intention make the difference between Labour being able to cobble together some kind of coalition, and a big right wing majority in Parliament.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
The reason for the 24 week number is that the foetus is generally viable on its own at that time.
So remove it from the womb and it lives without (much) medical intervention.
So, as these things go, a fairly rational demarcation point.
Around half of babies born at 24 weeks survive, and they only do so with considerable medical intervention. Survival rates in low income countries are closer to 0%.
But the law now extends it to term pregnancies. We're not taking about 24 weeks which I think everyone recognised as a good compromise between choice, science and morals.
What's to stop a rapist/abuser punching his abused wife/gf/(daughter) in the belly at 30 weeks pregnant and coercing her to say she self aborted now that there's no possibility of punishment for either party?
Lefty MPs have railroaded this change through without thinking about the consequences and none are good.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
One argument is that demonstrating the ability to defend against ballistic weapons is part of *our* defence posture.
Life testing is expensive - the Iranians are providing targets for free.
Iran is certainly more hostile to us than Isreal is.
As I explained to some of the more fun chaps at UCL*, if you shout “Death To The West” all the time, some Westerners are going to get the impression you are not their best friends.
*Friends of Capn’ Hookhand
It is not difficult to tell the difference between an Iranian with a grudge and a ray of sunshine.
The misinformation -fake-news- alternative -facts narrative over the abortion vote last night has been an astonishing low by some posters on Politicalbetting.com.
The abortion debate has complex morality issues which are not for me to criticise, however I think I am entitled to call out the absolute untruthful rubbish that was posted on here last night over the vote itself and what it all meant from a legal perspective.
Many of our more guarded and thoughtful posters seem to have retired injured over a whole range of subjects.
I don’t quite know how much difference this makes to voting intention - probably very little - but there is an “awkward kid trying to be cool/tough” vibe to Starmer which really lands poorly.
Rishi had it too - though not quite as gratingly bad.
He seems to think hes a big deal and we are all totally in awe of his achievements. Dreadful man, dreadful leader
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
One argument is that demonstrating the ability to defend against ballistic weapons is part of *our* defence posture.
Life testing is expensive - the Iranians are providing targets for free.
Iran is certainly more hostile to us than Isreal is.
As I explained to some of the more fun chaps at UCL*, if you shout “Death To The West” all the time, some Westerners are going to get the impression you are not their best friends.
*Friends of Capn’ Hookhand
It is not difficult to tell the difference between an Iranian with a grudge and a ray of sunshine.
These chaps weren’t (mostly) Iranians. Who, if they came from Iran and were going back, tended to quietly study engineering and physics.
No, this clown show was mostly homegrown. Angry young men who’d rediscovered God. As an angry young man (who’d discovered heavy metal, instead) I kinda related. I was one of the few people who actually talked to them as people. Rather than just shouting them down or trying to ally with them in the style of the Stupid Wankers Party.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
"...we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more..."
Um, do we now? At a guess we train some of their soldiers, sell them some electronics, and we make bits of the F35i. Whilst non-trivial, it's not what you'd usually call significant. We don't have a mutual defence treaty, our armies do not conduct joint exercises, we do not train their officers in Sandhurst. I'd seriously doubt we have any formal counter-terrorism arrangements, not because such a thing is undesirable, but because they are perfectly capable of doing it by themselves and we haven't got a lot of things to give them that i) they need and ii) the Americans won't give them faster and cheaper.
But we *do* have a mutual defence treaty with Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and we do supply Saudi Arabia with far more materiel.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
The reason for the 24 week number is that the foetus is generally viable on its own at that time.
So remove it from the womb and it lives without (much) medical intervention.
So, as these things go, a fairly rational demarcation point.
Around half of babies born at 24 weeks survive, and they only do so with considerable medical intervention. Survival rates in low income countries are closer to 0%.
But the law now extends it to term pregnancies. We're not taking about 24 weeks which I think everyone recognised as a good compromise between choice, science and morals.
What's to stop a rapist/abuser punching his abused wife/gf/(daughter) in the belly at 30 weeks pregnant and coercing her to say she self aborted now that there's no possibility of punishment for either party?
Lefty MPs have railroaded this change through without thinking about the consequences and none are good.
There is possibility of punishment for the abuser. When investigation, you are assuming the police would believe this story.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
It's a marvellous testament to the healing process of time that Britain has forgiven the kidnapping, torture, hanging and booby trapping of our troops by Israeli terrorists.
I don't think it would be controversial to say we consider Germany and Japan allies? And there is a long list of countries we've had difficult relations with since then whom we have no problem cooperating with now.
In any case, an ally doesn't mean a friend: it just means we have a common enemy so it is in our interest to cooperate.
Yes, but Germany and Japan seem to have given up their evil ways.....
Neither Germany nor Japan are surrounded by countries who have spent 50 years denying their right to exist and who have on two occasions all attacked them simultaneously in order to bring about this wish that they don't exist.
A lot of other countries questioned the right of Germany to exist in the 19th century. Germany's response and German regimes' interpretation of what Germany should be and where Germany should extend to caused two world wars in the early 20th century, with countries surrounding Germany disagreeing. Germany was dismembered as a result, with millions of ethnic Germans cleansed from eastern Europe. Germany was only reconstituted as a single nation decades later and still with narrower borders than Germans in the 19th century had or wanted. I'm not certain what conclusions to draw from that comparison.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
Radio Five Live is discussing this website, which I'd never heard of before.
"The creator of Tattle Life could face a raft of new lawsuits from stars defamed on his website after he was unmasked as the King of Trolls, experts told MailOnline today. Vegan influencer Sebastian Bond, 43, was exposed after a couple won a £300,000 libel payout over vile claims posted about them on the so-called 'trolls' paradise', which he quietly founded eight years ago. Tattle Life became an unchecked breeding ground for bullying, ‘doxxing’ and outright lies."
I'm familiar with the case of one person who was "documented" there - Jack Monroe. The bits I have seen have been about embarrassing detail and exposing hypocrisy - much of which is often true but the subject may wish to have out of the public gaze. In the JM case for example there was stuff about family background and behaviour, which did not quite match up to the portrayed public image. I'll say no more detail.
Probably well-described as tittle-tattle, or perhaps gossip including some malicious gossip. Think of it as content about individuals that in the political universe might be on Guido Fawkes or Popbitch.
I think Guido just lost too, did he not - where his 'my site is libel proof' claim went slightly pop ?
It’s fascinating how really small shifts in voting intention make the difference between Labour being able to cobble together some kind of coalition, and a big right wing majority in Parliament.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMzYP4pIDBw
Announcement, dossier and delay expected this afternoon.
Carroll Shelby was an interesting character.
For a nano second I actually considered buying a GT40 replica recently, but common sense prevailed. You need a metre either side of you to open the doors and reversing would need someone outside guiding you.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Voters do clearly want negotiations with Iran to end their nuclear programme which is what they will try and focus on
One of the reasons for not declaring regime change a war aim is to give the enemy leadership a possible future if they choose to stop fighting. There are circumstances where it makes sense to have unconditional surrender and regime change a war aim, but if you have such a maximalist approach it invites the enemy to defend themselves with every means at their disposal.
The situations are different, but see the similar debate around the Gulf War and the ‘need’ to ‘finish the job’ in 2003.
I do think we should go to war to stop our enemies from getting them though.
I would be most uncomfortable from your list with Saudi Arabia, who are not a democracy, having them. I don't feel that we should be allies with the Saudis though that's another question - if Iran were neutered there'd be less reason for us to side with the House of Saud.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
The deadline for when abortion should be an option should be when delivery becomes an alternative option, that's not 24 weeks, the NHS won't give voluntary deliveries (as opposed to medically required ones) at 24 weeks as its premature and not safe.
Nobody should be compelled by law to carry on with a pregnancy they don't want. If you wish to insist on delivery as an alternative to abortion then I'm OK with that, the pregnancy is still ended at that point so that's reasonable, but to pretend that "viability" means that abortion isn't OK, but delivery isn't OK either at that stage, is not consistent.
I am unsure of this change but certainly I assume any abortion will be undertaken by qualified medics
I would also suggest the mothers could have regrets later for the rest of their life
I do not agree with the arbitrary abortion of a child because it is an inconvenience
Doesn't mean we shouldn't support our friends and allies who are doing the right thing.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35452851/keir-starmer-g7-hand-shake-blunder/
Video included.
Which is why doctors try and wait. But will go ahead with a delivery if there is no alternative.
One thing that has not been mentioned is that long before 24 weeks, the difference between a delivery and an abortion narrows massively - in terms of medical seriousness and actual methods.
This isn’t a choice between a pill vs birth.
"The creator of Tattle Life could face a raft of new lawsuits from stars defamed on his website after he was unmasked as the King of Trolls, experts told MailOnline today. Vegan influencer Sebastian Bond, 43, was exposed after a couple won a £300,000 libel payout over vile claims posted about them on the so-called 'trolls' paradise', which he quietly founded eight years ago. Tattle Life became an unchecked breeding ground for bullying, ‘doxxing’ and outright lies."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14820403/Tattle-Life-troll-new-lawsuits.html
I'm not suggesting that we should support the vile Hamas. But we aren't compelled to support either side and we shouldn't.
Sharron Davies MBE
@sharrond62
11h
My grand daughter was born at 37 weeks. I’m horrified we have made it legal in the uk for healthy babies to be terminated up to the day before they’re due. Let’s hope the House of Lords stops this. So euthanasia for our old & infirm & now anyone can get rid of their baby with no repercussions. This does not represent public opinion why are these things happening! I don’t recognise my country anymore😔
At least Davies MBE has an excuse (she's a fekkin dimwit).
Stopped in some embarrassment when she realised everyone else was standing to attention.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
Abortion rights is about the right to have control over your own body.
Whether trans people have the right of access to the single-sex space of their choice is a matter of balancing conflicting rights.
There isn't the contradiction that you are implying.
Life testing is expensive - the Iranians are providing targets for free.
Israel on the other hand is a geopolitical problem as it is the cause of much instability in an already volatile region. I don't think realpolitik should drive every foreign policy decision but as Israel doesn't really share my values more than the others I don't see any reason to do something special for them.
To be clear I'm taking about the states not the people. I know some really lovely Israelis and Iranians.
So remove it from the womb and it lives without (much) medical intervention.
So, as these things go, a fairly rational demarcation point.
It would be fascinating to know the motivations of both factions, particularly strongly oppose: anti-Israel or pro-not-getting-involved in a quarrel of far away countries, between people of whom we know nothing?
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
A child is not an accessory
Obviously we would have invaded the States in WW2, if we'd not been too busy.
People have the right to be selfish and do actions you dislike in a free society.
'Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, said on Saturday that he sent combat and support aircraft to the region. The decision, he said, came after what he described as a “good and constructive” conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “that included discussions about the safety and security of Israel, as you would expect, between two allies.”'
I'd say Israel being an ally is as fixed a trope with successive UK PMs as the special relationship, and with about as much utility.
I’m not sure I’m keen on sending British troops out to occupy Iran or anything drastic like that. But if Israel has the opportunity to put back Iran’s ability to threaten us, I have no objection to helping that along a bit.
Iran (and to a lesser extent, some of the Arabs – though it varies hugely from state to state) isn’t normal regimes like that of the UK or France, or even Russia. They get their instructions straight from a furious and vengeful god. They can’t be reasoned with. When they say ‘death to the west’, that isn’t just a slogan: they mean it. That’s not to say that’s true of normal Iranians. But normal Iranians aren’t the ones in charge.
Not everything has to be written in a treaty or law to make it so, it just makes a refreshing change that Starmer can tell that in this instance and doesn't need it written down in a report for someone to inform him that we're allies.
What is not reasonable is telling women they must continue with a pregnancy they don't want, because the foetus is viable but its not safe to deliver it yet.
If a woman does not wish to be pregnant, then either deliver it, or abort it. Don't insist they continue to be human incubators for an unwanted pregnancy.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Tbh it doesn't much matter what we do, as ever the septics are key.
Starmer will do whatever Trump tells him, mind.
What a cock.
Stay there, you wont like the reception 'back home'
In any case, an ally doesn't mean a friend: it just means we have a common enemy so it is in our interest to cooperate.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
Rishi had it too - though not quite as gratingly bad.
To take an extreme example, causing the death of a foetus whilst in the birth canal of a normal labour is now decriminalised for the would be mother.
Whilst it's overwhemingly likely such a woman should be in a secure mental institute due to a very distressed mental state, that's something psychiatrists could advise the CPS on.
De facto I think this is an area where maybe guidance should have changed rather than the law.
Those who are opposed to a Prime Minister will always shout louder than those who support or are broadly neutral.
Words like "blunder", "gaffe" and "outrage" have become so devalued as to lose all impact.
It's not embarrassing or a gaffe compared to for example the Emma Reynolds interview which was bad.
Right wing and socially conservative moids can gag on it.
There is also the tension in the worldview that supports the Right To Life when it comes to abortion, but also the Right To Kill when it comes to guns and the death penalty.
People are a mess and morality is rarely simple.
Knowing what we know now, I wonder if the world would have been a better place if Radio 4 had never commissioned The Moral Maze.
*Friends of Capn’ Hookhand
What's to stop a rapist/abuser punching his abused wife/gf/(daughter) in the belly at 30 weeks pregnant and coercing her to say she self aborted now that there's no possibility of punishment for either party?
Lefty MPs have railroaded this change through without thinking about the consequences and none are good.
The abortion debate has complex morality issues which are not for me to criticise, however I think I am entitled to call out the absolute untruthful rubbish that was posted on here last night over the vote itself and what it all meant from a legal perspective.
Many of our more guarded and thoughtful posters seem to have retired injured over a whole range of subjects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMo00fQesII
No, this clown show was mostly homegrown. Angry young men who’d rediscovered God. As an angry young man (who’d discovered heavy metal, instead) I kinda related. I was one of the few people who actually talked to them as people. Rather than just shouting them down or trying to ally with them in the style of the Stupid Wankers Party.
Um, do we now? At a guess we train some of their soldiers, sell them some electronics, and we make bits of the F35i. Whilst non-trivial, it's not what you'd usually call significant. We don't have a mutual defence treaty, our armies do not conduct joint exercises, we do not train their officers in Sandhurst. I'd seriously doubt we have any formal counter-terrorism arrangements, not because such a thing is undesirable, but because they are perfectly capable of doing it by themselves and we haven't got a lot of things to give them that i) they need and ii) the Americans won't give them faster and cheaper.
But we *do* have a mutual defence treaty with Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and we do supply Saudi Arabia with far more materiel.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention.
Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
Probably well-described as tittle-tattle, or perhaps gossip including some malicious gossip. Think of it as content about individuals that in the political universe might be on Guido Fawkes or Popbitch.
I think Guido just lost too, did he not - where his 'my site is libel proof' claim went slightly pop ?
I see that the lawyers involved are Carter-Ruck.
They are not allies in the normal sense though. The UK just has to honk them off whenever the US says so.