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.
Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
Israel is a democracy. Given the struggles they democracy currently has, and the way it is being pushed back in numerous countries, I think Britain has a general interest in being on the side of a democracy - whatever its imperfections - when it is in conflict with a theocracy.
That is a principle I would support were Israel not in the process of starving 2m people in Gaza and shelling those who do come forward for food. There are limits.
If Israel wants more support, it needs to behave like a member of the civilized world. it could also help its cause by being more supportive itself of other countries invaded and bullied by larger neighbours, viz Ukraine.
If Trump were a real dealmaker, he would let Israel have the bunker-buster bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear underground facilities - in exchange for lifting the medieval siege of Gaza.
That he hasn't...
What use would they be to Israel without the heavy bombers (like the B2) required to carry them ?
They have US bunker busters, which they've used extensively in Gaza, but they don't have the capacity to hit the really deep facilities like Fordow.
Is the B2 required? Surely the US could sell Israel a bunch of B1.Bs? They have a significantly heavier payload than the B2. Given that Israel is trashing Iran's air defence capability, it doesn't need stealth capability. A supersonic bomber that can unleash a devastating payload is exactly what Israel needs.
Depends on the internal setup - the B2 can carry the CSRL, which is supposed to swap out with the rack for the GBU-57.
But the B1B hasn’t been qualified for it. Might not fit the bays. The B1B is also an incredible maintenance hog - requires an army of well trained spanner types to get it to fly. And a mountain of spares.
Then you’d have pilot training….
Whole thing would be a non-starter.
The only real option might be test samples of the NGP - which is supposed to be the same capability of GBU-57 but one third the weight.
All fair points, but ther edoes seem to be a capability gap in the Israeli air force.
I've seen it suggested that the NGP is so accurate it could follow down the hole made by its predecessor bomb - with each getting further through the concrete surround of the facility until you finally breakthrough. Be quite the Top Gun award to be the one who finally smashes into the facility. Sure there'd be plenty up for trying....
In the 70s the Americans experimented with throwing ICBMs out of the back of cargo planes. Could the Israelis use a similar atypical drop method for these large bombs?
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.
Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
Israel is a democracy. Given the struggles they democracy currently has, and the way it is being pushed back in numerous countries, I think Britain has a general interest in being on the side of a democracy - whatever its imperfections - when it is in conflict with a theocracy.
That is a principle I would support were Israel not in the process of starving 2m people in Gaza and shelling those who do come forward for food. There are limits.
If Israel wants more support, it needs to behave like a member of the civilized world. it could also help its cause by being more supportive itself of other countries invaded and bullied by larger neighbours, viz Ukraine.
If Trump were a real dealmaker, he would let Israel have the bunker-buster bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear underground facilities - in exchange for lifting the medieval siege of Gaza.
That he hasn't...
What use would they be to Israel without the heavy bombers (like the B2) required to carry them ?
They have US bunker busters, which they've used extensively in Gaza, but they don't have the capacity to hit the really deep facilities like Fordow.
Is the B2 required? Surely the US could sell Israel a bunch of B1.Bs? They have a significantly heavier payload than the B2. Given that Israel is trashing Iran's air defence capability, it doesn't need stealth capability. A supersonic bomber that can unleash a devastating payload is exactly what Israel needs.
I am fairly confident that the US is not going to supply any long range strategic bomber to Israel. Which probably couldn't afford the expense of operating them anyway without additional billions in US support.
Of course you never know, with the current nutter in the White House. But the political blowback would be way bigger than were Trump just to go ahead and have the US do the bombing for them.
Transport secretary confirms HS2 delay.Talking about a separate assessment by Mark Wild, the current CEO of HS2 Limited, she says she sees "no route by which trains can be running by 2033 as planned"
Transport secretary confirms HS2 delay.Talking about a separate assessment by Mark Wild, the current CEO of HS2 Limited, she says she sees "no route by which trains can be running by 2033 as planned"
That's a terrible dereliction of duty by this Government.
The Conservatives were running the show less than a year ago and they were planning for the first trains to be running by 2026!
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
I think that would have been a bad move. If the law isn't to be enforced then it shouldn't be law. (On which point, the existing abortion law could have done with amending to put the de facto right to abortion on a de jure footing)
But I do think that such a major change should not have come off the back of an amendment with minimal public or political debate in advance. Compare the amount of time and attention given to this vote with that when the limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks (which was a less significant change).
Is that not how is it (de facto) dealt with on a wide variety of issues though? I.e the CPS look at the circumstances and make a public interest judgement.
Whether that should be the position, perhaps an interesting debate.
At the extremes there may be a public interest case for not prosecuting a clear crime for which the evidence is available but I would not want that to become routine; it undermines the whole basis of what the law is.
The numbers are tinier than tiny. There were 260 abortions after 24 weeks in England 2022, which is 0.1% of the total, and amongst those where there is a possibility of criminal proceedings will be a further tiny fraction of those.
I think there is some politics around setting the type of conversation, where abortion will be considered as a medical procedure, rather than an emphasis on abortion as a crime and imposing opinions on women where their individual choice is undermined.
I think this basis is important, especially as we see attempts to import a fundamentalist politics around abortion from the USA, where the welfare of the woman becomes a peripheral priority in the minds of the proponents of the types of laws there are now in a number of US states.
I'm at ease with decriminalisation of abortion for the woman who makes the choice - I'm convinced by the assertion that she knows best, but there must be the possibility of criminal charges for those who force any woman to have an abortion against her will.
I have not seen exact details for the numbers of prosecutions of women where it was all their own will, but on the stats I quote I'm convinced that it is better to decriminalise.
BTW - "Party of Baby Killers" - wtf is Richard Tice on?
Morally I'm not really comfortable with it (although as a liberal not sure if/how much that should matter here) but from a pragmatic point of view two questions I'd consider are:
Will more people have very late abortions because of the law change? I doubt it changes the numbers much at all, but should be recorded so that we know.
Does sending the mother to prison actually help either as a deterrent or to stop further criminal acts? I can't see how it does, especially the latter.
So whilst an important, interesting and difficult moral dilemna, from a legal perspective I don't think it actually has much importance either way.
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)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
Birth.
That's a legal/political view though, not a scientifical one. The science tells us that the foetus is very much conscious, and babies can recall their time in the womb, sometimes for a long period. Usually I would expect you to have some regard for the facts (obviously as you discern them) above peoples' sensitivities. That's how you portray yourself anyway.
What! I've never heard that. How do you know that?
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)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
Birth.
That's a legal/political view though, not a scientifical one. The science tells us that the foetus is very much conscious, and babies can recall their time in the womb, sometimes for a long period. Usually I would expect you to have some regard for the facts (obviously as you discern them) above peoples' sensitivities. That's how you portray yourself anyway.
What! I've never heard that. How do you know that?
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)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
I think it’s a mistake to think that a foetus becomes a person at some point. That’s the big fallacy, that there is a moment in time before which it isn’t a person and after which, they are a person. Rather, it’s a process, a gradual change. A 16-week foetus is not a person. A child post-birth is a person. Personhood gradually develops. However, the law wants simple cut-offs.
As far as the law is concerned, there is no foetal personhood. It's not a question of "wants", so much as necessarily requires.
The alternative would be to have every pregnant women subject to conservative judges and/or politicians constraining every aspect of their behaviour (including access to medical advice) on behalf of the foetus.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Israel has been at peace with Egypt and Jordan for many years. And the Bedouins in Israel seem to be doing reasonably well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin#Israel As are most other religious minorities.
So those who try to make peace with Israel often succeed.
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)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
I think it’s a mistake to think that a foetus becomes a person at some point. That’s the big fallacy, that there is a moment in time before which it isn’t a person and after which, they are a person. Rather, it’s a process, a gradual change. A 16-week foetus is not a person. A child post-birth is a person. Personhood gradually develops. However, the law wants simple cut-offs.
Indeed. The problem is that we live in the Process State. The Law is God. Does it not tell the PM what to think?
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)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
I think it’s a mistake to think that a foetus becomes a person at some point. That’s the big fallacy, that there is a moment in time before which it isn’t a person and after which, they are a person. Rather, it’s a process, a gradual change. A 16-week foetus is not a person. A child post-birth is a person. Personhood gradually develops. However, the law wants simple cut-offs.
I think Peter Singer etc make an argument even birth is questionably soon, or at least inconsistent with how we treat the great apes. There's probably a point there, any parent will tell you newborns don't do that much.
As all the absolutist points of view seem a bit silly, imo it comes down to when you switch from erring on the side of the mother to erring on the side of the potential/actual baby and since you're making that switch from erring one way to the other... well whenever you choose you err...
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.
Fetal survival rate in the UK: 24 weeks: Survival rates range from 42% to 59%. 23 weeks: Survival rates are lower, typically around 23% to 27%. 25 weeks: Survival rates improve, ranging from 67% to 76%
Discounting the elevated risk of severe long-term health complications.
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
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)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
Birth.
That's a legal/political view though, not a scientifical one. The science tells us that the foetus is very much conscious, and babies can recall their time in the womb, sometimes for a long period. Usually I would expect you to have some regard for the facts (obviously as you discern them) above peoples' sensitivities. That's how you portray yourself anyway.
What! I've never heard that. How do you know that?
They advise you to play it music at times of relaxation and the baby will recall the tune and be calmed by it.
Not much sign of the abortion debate anywhere other than PB. Not trending on X, not top read on the BBC, not mentioned on the landing page of the Telegraph, halfway down the Mail front page, nothing on Mumsnet, a couple of articles in the Spectator but that's it.
It's worthy of debate but it's simply not a big political issue - at least for the moment.
Looking forward to quality polling on the topic from the likes of YouGov, etc.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Israel has been at peace with Egypt and Jordan for many years. And the Bedouins in Israel seem to be doing reasonably well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin#Israel As are most other religious minorities.
So those who try to make peace with Israel often succeed.
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
Since this site is about politics, three observations about the politics of abortion in the US: In the US, at one time the arguments were mostly between Catholics and mainline Protestants fearing the faster growth of the Catholic population.
Second -- though this was seldom said out loud -- many whites feared the growth of the black population. There so many abortions done on black women that civil rights leader Jesse Jackson referred to it as a "Holocaust". (He changed to stay a player in the Democratic Party.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson
Third, one of the strongest early advocates of legalizing abortion was the late Hugh Hefner. For obvious reasons.
If you could travel back in time to spring 1889 and convince Hitler's mum to have an abortion, would you?
Stephen Fry covered this in his novel Making History. Essentially a bit of time travel, ends up with no Hitler but a different leader emerges who enacts sterilisation on the Jewish race after fully exploiting them to win WW2. The point, I guess, is that we don't know it would be better.
Ran short of fuel, and had to divert, I think. Not sure what the problem is with topping it back up.
It probably was short of fuel by the time it got to Thiruvananthapuram but I will guarantee that it is not the reason it diverted there. Some sort of system failure that inhibited a VL would be my guess and now they are waiting for parts from UK/USA.
It'll be very hard to get it back to the ship because the CSG can't wait for it so they'll probably have to try to get it back to the UK. Pain in the dick either way. Nice job for the gingers getting full of lamb pasanda and slaughtered on Kingfisher every night while the bit spends six weeks in Indian customs.
Transport secretary confirms HS2 delay.Talking about a separate assessment by Mark Wild, the current CEO of HS2 Limited, she says she sees "no route by which trains can be running by 2033 as planned"
Since this site is about politics, three observations about the politics of abortion in the US: In the US, at one time the arguments were mostly between Catholics and mainline Protestants fearing the faster growth of the Catholic population.
Maybe that's what Stella Creasy meant by saying it was a pre-emptive move against the right. Strangle them at birth, so to speak.
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)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
Birth.
That's a legal/political view though, not a scientifical one. The science tells us that the foetus is very much conscious, and babies can recall their time in the womb, sometimes for a long period. Usually I would expect you to have some regard for the facts (obviously as you discern them) above peoples' sensitivities. That's how you portray yourself anyway.
What! I've never heard that. How do you know that?
They advise you to play it music at times of relaxation and the baby will recall the tune and be calmed by it.
Also, they remember the white noise of the womb. The amniotic fluid and the heartbeat and the sway of the mother
This is why you can quieten a baby by turning on a hoover or taking it in a car: white noise. The former worked brilliantly with my older daughter
And this is why you rock a baby to sleep - it mimics the sense of the mother’s movement in utero. Some say it’s why people - even as adults - sleep better on trains. They are rocked
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)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
Birth.
That's a legal/political view though, not a scientifical one. The science tells us that the foetus is very much conscious, and babies can recall their time in the womb, sometimes for a long period. Usually I would expect you to have some regard for the facts (obviously as you discern them) above peoples' sensitivities. That's how you portray yourself anyway.
What! I've never heard that. How do you know that?
They advise you to play it music at times of relaxation and the baby will recall the tune and be calmed by it.
That rather depends on the meaning of "recall". The baby will react differently to the tune it heard in utero. Learning has happened. I don't think that counts as recalling their time in the womb: there's no evidence of a conscious memory of that time.
Ran short of fuel, and had to divert, I think. Not sure what the problem is with topping it back up.
During ze War, when the U.S. B-29 bombers made emergency landings in the Russian Far East, the Soviets promptly interned them, and "reverse engineered" them into the Tupolev Tu-4.
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
It was a complete hostage to fortune to make any statement on Trump's future intentions given his track record.
Ran short of fuel, and had to divert, I think. Not sure what the problem is with topping it back up.
It probably was short of fuel by the time it got to Thiruvananthapuram but I will guarantee that it is not the reason it diverted there. Some sort of system failure that inhibited a VL would be my guess and now they are waiting for parts from UK/USA.
It'll be very hard to get it back to the ship because the CSG can't wait for it so they'll probably have to try to get it back to the UK. Pain in the dick either way. Nice job for the gingers getting full of lamb pasanda and slaughtered on Kingfisher every night while the bit spends six weeks in Indian customs.
Just find a cargo ship heading in the right direction...
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.I
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Perhaps he shouldn’t have given such weight to Don’s dinner banter. Dan Hodges quote tweeted it at the time saying Starmer must have had gone mad
Ran short of fuel, and had to divert, I think. Not sure what the problem is with topping it back up.
During ze War, when the U.S. B-29 bombers made emergency landings in the Russian Far East, the Soviets promptly interned them, and "reverse engineered" them into the Tupolev Tu-4.
That story is more fascinating the more you dive down into the details of it. As an example, because the US used imperial and the Russians metric, the Russians did not have sheet steel of the right thickness. That meant they had to go slightly thinner, and risk structural problems, or thicker, and have the plane heavier. But as Stalin had commanded an exact copy of the B-29, no-one would sign off any changes lest they go against Stalin's command.
This led to some rally stupid situations, including one where they did not want to change from the American IFF system to a Russian one, because that would mean a difference...
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
If you could travel back in time to spring 1889 and convince Hitler's mum to have an abortion, would you?
No. I suspect there's a good chance someone else would have taken over Germany in the 1930s. They may have been more competent.
The normal science fiction trope story is that someone travels back in time, offs Hitler, and then someone worse/more competent takes over.
But there's a darker version which has a time traveller returning to the present and wondering why everyone isn't rejoicing at his having assassinated Hartler, who extended the Great Depression into the 1940s by pegging the Reichsmark to the dollar... https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2920
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Ran short of fuel, and had to divert, I think. Not sure what the problem is with topping it back up.
During ze War, when the U.S. B-29 bombers made emergency landings in the Russian Far East, the Soviets promptly interned them, and "reverse engineered" them into the Tupolev Tu-4.
Who do you think were the most outrageously ungrateful after WW2 - the French, or the Russians?
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
I think that would have been a bad move. If the law isn't to be enforced then it shouldn't be law. (On which point, the existing abortion law could have done with amending to put the de facto right to abortion on a de jure footing)
But I do think that such a major change should not have come off the back of an amendment with minimal public or political debate in advance. Compare the amount of time and attention given to this vote with that when the limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks (which was a less significant change).
Is that not how is it (de facto) dealt with on a wide variety of issues though? I.e the CPS look at the circumstances and make a public interest judgement.
Whether that should be the position, perhaps an interesting debate.
At the extremes there may be a public interest case for not prosecuting a clear crime for which the evidence is available but I would not want that to become routine; it undermines the whole basis of what the law is.
The numbers are tinier than tiny. There were 260 abortions after 24 weeks in England 2022, which is 0.1% of the total, and amongst those where there is a possibility of criminal proceedings will be a further tiny fraction of those.
I think there is some politics around setting the type of conversation, where abortion will be considered as a medical procedure, rather than an emphasis on abortion as a crime and imposing opinions on women where their individual choice is undermined.
I think this basis is important, especially as we see attempts to import a fundamentalist politics around abortion from the USA, where the welfare of the woman becomes a peripheral priority in the minds of the proponents of the types of laws there are now in a number of US states.
I'm at ease with decriminalisation of abortion for the woman who makes the choice - I'm convinced by the assertion that she knows best, but there must be the possibility of criminal charges for those who force any woman to have an abortion against her will.
I have not seen exact details for the numbers of prosecutions of women where it was all their own will, but on the stats I quote I'm convinced that it is better to decriminalise.
BTW - "Party of Baby Killers" - wtf is Richard Tice on?
But how much is the fact that there were relatively few abortions post-24 weeks precisely because it's illegal?
In any case, I don't think the numbers are particularly important here compared with the principle.
Where I agree is that I would hate for this topic to become the subject of partisan abuse (indeed, ideally any sort of abuse but all the more so where it degenerates to 'your idea is bad, and you are bad, because you wear that colour rosette'). Parliament has generally debated abortion as well as any subject because it has come to the issue with consideration and thoughtfulness, and while people have strong views in some cases, even then they can see that there are counterarguments. I worry that ramming this legislation through so quickly and as an amendment goes against that tradition.
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Sir Keir Starmer stumbled into a major gaffe when he mistook an interpreter for the South Korean leader.
The Prime Minister shook hands with a translator rather than his counterpart Lee Jae-myung while at the G7 summit.
Have we spotted the bit where Sir Keir shakes the wrong person's hand yet? I really want to laugh and sneer at the guy, but that killer moment isn't obviously apparent in the available footage.
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Sir Keir Starmer stumbled into a major gaffe when he mistook an interpreter for the South Korean leader.
The Prime Minister shook hands with a translator rather than his counterpart Lee Jae-myung while at the G7 summit.
Apparently PB feels that this isn't embarrassing because it was a Labour PM, not a Tory one.
It's a gaffe. It's not the most egregious gaffe made by a PM in the last twenty seven years. A much bigger gaffe will be if Starmer hangs on to Netanyahu and Trump's coat-tails over Iran hostilities.
If you could travel back in time to spring 1889 and convince Hitler's mum to have an abortion, would you?
No. I suspect there's a good chance someone else would have taken over Germany in the 1930s. They may have been more competent.
The normal science fiction trope story is that someone travels back in time, offs Hitler, and then someone worse/more competent takes over.
But there's a darker version which has a time traveller returning to the present and wondering why everyone isn't rejoicing at his having assassinated Hartler, who extended the Great Depression into the 1940s by pegging the Reichsmark to the dollar... https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2920
As my Dad revels in saying - there are not ifs in history.
However as an exercise its fun to imagine what 'could' have happened without Hitler. Your view will probably depend on whether you ascribe to the great man/woman view of history or to the broad sweep of history. Personally I think Hitler was a rather unique, gifted individual, and a thoroughly repellent human being. He undoubtedly was the star and driving force for the Nazi party. No Hitler - the Nazis would have been just another pathetic collection of right wing anti-semites in Munich. Could another right wing party/leader have seized power? Very possibly - after all the 1930's was the period for dictatorships. Would it have turned out the same way? Almost certainly not.
Britain actually had a plan to assassinate Hitler during the war, but the Cabinet decided not to authorise it after deciding the PR coup of killing him wasn't worth the risk he might be replaced by someone who wasn't a micro-managing idiot.
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Sir Keir Starmer stumbled into a major gaffe when he mistook an interpreter for the South Korean leader.
The Prime Minister shook hands with a translator rather than his counterpart Lee Jae-myung while at the G7 summit.
Apparently PB feels that this isn't embarrassing because it was a Labour PM, not a Tory one.
It's a gaffe. It's not the most egregious gaffe made by a PM in the last twenty seven years. A much bigger gaffe will be if Starmer hangs on to Netanyahu and Trump's coat-tails over Iran hostilities.
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Sir Keir Starmer stumbled into a major gaffe when he mistook an interpreter for the South Korean leader.
The Prime Minister shook hands with a translator rather than his counterpart Lee Jae-myung while at the G7 summit.
Apparently PB feels that this isn't embarrassing because it was a Labour PM, not a Tory one.
It's a gaffe. It's not the most egregious gaffe made by a PM in the last twenty seven years. A much bigger gaffe will be if Starmer hangs on to Netanyahu and Trump's coat-tails over Iran hostilities.
If only Hamas would release the sausages.
Yes that was more significant than this diplomatic faux pas. Although still a 1/10 compared to your boy's 11/10 Peppa Pig fiasco.
Tomorrow's local by-elections are in Adur (Buckingham), Highland (Cromarty Firth), Highland (Eilean a' Cheò), North Yorkshire (Eastfield), Sefton (Blundellsands), Spelthorne (Ashford Town).
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Sir Keir Starmer stumbled into a major gaffe when he mistook an interpreter for the South Korean leader.
The Prime Minister shook hands with a translator rather than his counterpart Lee Jae-myung while at the G7 summit.
Apparently PB feels that this isn't embarrassing because it was a Labour PM, not a Tory one.
It's a gaffe. It's not the most egregious gaffe made by a PM in the last twenty seven years. A much bigger gaffe will be if Starmer hangs on to Netanyahu and Trump's coat-tails over Iran hostilities.
If only Hamas would release the sausages.
Yes that was more significant than this diplomatic faux pas. Although still a 1/10 compared to your boy's 11/10 Peppa Pig fiasco.
Britain actually had a plan to assassinate Hitler during the war, but the Cabinet decided not to authorise it after deciding the PR coup of killing him wasn't worth the risk he might be replaced by someone who wasn't a micro-managing idiot.
A genuine concern - certainly the decision to attack at Kursk in 1943 and in the Ardennes in 1944 were monumentally stupid if you aim was to prolong the war. Far better to focus of proper defence. but Hitler only had one mode - seize the initiative and thus it must be via an attack. Doing so frittered away lives and equipment to no gain. Thankfully.
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Sir Keir Starmer stumbled into a major gaffe when he mistook an interpreter for the South Korean leader.
The Prime Minister shook hands with a translator rather than his counterpart Lee Jae-myung while at the G7 summit.
Apparently PB feels that this isn't embarrassing because it was a Labour PM, not a Tory one.
It's a gaffe. It's not the most egregious gaffe made by a PM in the last twenty seven years. A much bigger gaffe will be if Starmer hangs on to Netanyahu and Trump's coat-tails over Iran hostilities.
If only Hamas would release the sausages.
Yes that was more significant than this diplomatic faux pas. Although still a 1/10 compared to your boy's 11/10 Peppa Pig fiasco.
England team to face India in first Test: Zak Crawley, Ben Duckett, Ollie Pope, Joe Root, Harry Brook, Ben Stokes, Jamie Smith, Chris Woakes, Brydon Carse, Josh Tongue, Shoaib Bashir.
I go with Bethell every time. That bowling line up won't scare India.
England team to face India in first Test: Zak Crawley, Ben Duckett, Ollie Pope, Joe Root, Harry Brook, Ben Stokes, Jamie Smith, Chris Woakes, Brydon Carse, Josh Tongue, Shoaib Bashir.
I go with Bethell every time.
Bethell to come in in the 3rd test and get man of the series (a la Woakes in the Ashes).
If you could travel back in time to spring 1889 and convince Hitler's mum to have an abortion, would you?
No. I suspect there's a good chance someone else would have taken over Germany in the 1930s. They may have been more competent.
The normal science fiction trope story is that someone travels back in time, offs Hitler, and then someone worse/more competent takes over.
But there's a darker version which has a time traveller returning to the present and wondering why everyone isn't rejoicing at his having assassinated Hartler, who extended the Great Depression into the 1940s by pegging the Reichsmark to the dollar... https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2920
As my Dad revels in saying - there are not ifs in history.
However as an exercise its fun to imagine what 'could' have happened without Hitler. Your view will probably depend on whether you ascribe to the great man/woman view of history or to the broad sweep of history. Personally I think Hitler was a rather unique, gifted individual, and a thoroughly repellent human being. He undoubtedly was the star and driving force for the Nazi party. No Hitler - the Nazis would have been just another pathetic collection of right wing anti-semites in Munich. Could another right wing party/leader have seized power? Very possibly - after all the 1930's was the period for dictatorships. Would it have turned out the same way? Almost certainly not.
My take home message from it all is that it's not enough to be against something - in this case Hitler - you also have to be in favour of something better. Getting rid of Hitler doesn't solve all the problems in the Germany is the 30s that were part of the reason it became a fascist dictatorship.
In a more low-key way this is also Starmer's problem. He has a landslide majority on the basis of not being the Tories. But he's a complete political vacuum, and so there's no political motive power for his government to create anything better.
Since this site is about politics, three observations about the politics of abortion in the US: In the US, at one time the arguments were mostly between Catholics and mainline Protestants fearing the faster growth of the Catholic population.
Maybe that's what Stella Creasy meant by saying it was a pre-emptive move against the right. Strangle them at birth, so to speak.
Labour voting Muslims are also often strongly anti abortion and Roman Catholics have traditionally been more likely to vote Labour in the UK than British Protestants.
Of course in the US evangelical Protestants are even more anti abortion than Roman Catholics now even if mainline Protestants are still largely in favour with controls
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Sir Keir Starmer stumbled into a major gaffe when he mistook an interpreter for the South Korean leader.
The Prime Minister shook hands with a translator rather than his counterpart Lee Jae-myung while at the G7 summit.
Apparently PB feels that this isn't embarrassing because it was a Labour PM, not a Tory one.
It's a gaffe. It's not the most egregious gaffe made by a PM in the last twenty seven years. A much bigger gaffe will be if Starmer hangs on to Netanyahu and Trump's coat-tails over Iran hostilities.
Tbh, it's the kind of thing you would expect Starmer to get right. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse - if it was Johnson we'd consider it within expectations but also castigate him for it. With Starmer it's a surprise and therefore easier to accept as an honest mistake.
England team to face India in first Test: Zak Crawley, Ben Duckett, Ollie Pope, Joe Root, Harry Brook, Ben Stokes, Jamie Smith, Chris Woakes, Brydon Carse, Josh Tongue, Shoaib Bashir.
I go with Bethell every time. That bowling line up won't scare India.
Ran short of fuel, and had to divert, I think. Not sure what the problem is with topping it back up.
It might make sense that there is a problem with the fuel transfer system - so that fuel couldn’t be used from a tank. Maybe a pump? This would have reduced the range, and explain why they haven’t just refuelled and gone back.
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)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
Birth.
That's a legal/political view though, not a scientifical one. The science tells us that the foetus is very much conscious, and babies can recall their time in the womb, sometimes for a long period. Usually I would expect you to have some regard for the facts (obviously as you discern them) above peoples' sensitivities. That's how you portray yourself anyway.
What! I've never heard that. How do you know that?
They advise you to play it music at times of relaxation and the baby will recall the tune and be calmed by it.
Also, they remember the white noise of the womb. The amniotic fluid and the heartbeat and the sway of the mother
This is why you can quieten a baby by turning on a hoover or taking it in a car: white noise. The former worked brilliantly with my older daughter
And this is why you rock a baby to sleep - it mimics the sense of the mother’s movement in utero. Some say it’s why people - even as adults - sleep better on trains. They are rocked
Reading the abortion discussion I feel very conflicted, as birth and issues around it have, at one time or another, featured in our family's discussions.
First of all, eldest son was two months premature which meant, back in the 60's, two months isolation from his mother. He survived and his poor start doesn't seem to have affected him either intellectually or socially.
Secondly, fast forward twenty something years, our daughter, his younger sister was pregnant with her first child, and was told, fairly late in the process, that 'there appears to be something wrong with the baby; do you want a termination?" And I clearly recall her telling us that she could 'hear' the baby telling her that it was fine 'don't hurt me'. She didn't, and the child was perfectly normal, and indeed now has a doctorate.
However, in her late 40's and suffering from MND her contraception failed and she became pregnant. She was advised to have a late termination and did so. We were told the foetus appeared to have 'issues' and might or might not survived. Our daughter died of her MND when the baby would have been about a year old.
Fairly late in my pharmaceutical career I had a post which required me, sometimes, to make up 'balancing feeds' for premature babies, who were, one way and another short of various minerals due to abbreviated foetal development. At least one of these babies still has challenges, thirty years later, although I believe he has quite a demanding job.
I don't feel therefore that there's a simple answer to this matter unless it be to ALWAYS let nature take it's course, which would, equally, have lead to considerable problems in the last case. Thou shalt not kill/but do not strive/officiously/to keep alive seems to be a thought plus cheap, easily available contraception and contraceptive advice.
England team to face India in first Test: Zak Crawley, Ben Duckett, Ollie Pope, Joe Root, Harry Brook, Ben Stokes, Jamie Smith, Chris Woakes, Brydon Carse, Josh Tongue, Shoaib Bashir.
I go with Bethell every time. That bowling line up won't scare India.
But do we bat deep?
Woakes at 8 is decent, Karse hits a long ball. Bashir is talked up but has never delivered in a test but not really had the chance. Biggest concern for me is bowling them out in hot weather (no swing).
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
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.
Fetal survival rate in the UK: 24 weeks: Survival rates range from 42% to 59%. 23 weeks: Survival rates are lower, typically around 23% to 27%. 25 weeks: Survival rates improve, ranging from 67% to 76%
Discounting the elevated risk of severe long-term health complications.
Yes.
Almost as if 24 weeks was a compromise, based on the reality of there being no absolute number, isn’t it?
Reading the abortion discussion I feel very conflicted, as birth and issues around it have, at one time or another, featured in our family's discussions.
First of all, eldest son was two months premature which meant, back in the 60's, two months isolation from his mother. He survived and his poor start doesn't seem to have affected him either intellectually or socially.
Secondly, fast forward twenty something years, our daughter, his younger sister was pregnant with her first child, and was told, fairly late in the process, that 'there appears to be something wrong with the baby; do you want a termination?" And I clearly recall her telling us that she could 'hear' the baby telling her that it was fine 'don't hurt me'. She didn't, and the child was perfectly normal, and indeed now has a doctorate.
However, in her late 40's and suffering from MND her contraception failed and she became pregnant. She was advised to have a late termination and did so. We were told the foetus appeared to have 'issues' and might or might not survived. Our daughter died of her MND when the baby would have been about a year old.
Fairly late in my pharmaceutical career I had a post which required me, sometimes, to make up 'balancing feeds' for premature babies, who were, one way and another short of various minerals due to abbreviated foetal development. At least one of these babies still has challenges, thirty years later, although I believe he has quite a demanding job.
I don't feel therefore that there's a simple answer to this matter unless it be to ALWAYS let nature take it's course, which would, equally, have lead to considerable problems in the last case. Thou shalt not kill/but do not strive/officiously/to keep alive seems to be a thought plus cheap, easily available contraception and contraceptive advice.
That's a tough story. Several tough stories. Sympax
Transport secretary confirms HS2 delay.Talking about a separate assessment by Mark Wild, the current CEO of HS2 Limited, she says she sees "no route by which trains can be running by 2033 as planned"
Sounds like it’s run by the same useless bastards doing the tune tunnel upgrade. I genuinely have nothing but hatred for them
BREAKING: Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
I am not sure that is a slam-dunk confirmation of Starmer's incompetence. It perhaps suggests that Trump is so unstable he has U turned bigly, perhaps after a phone call with Bibi.
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
Sir Keir Starmer stumbled into a major gaffe when he mistook an interpreter for the South Korean leader.
The Prime Minister shook hands with a translator rather than his counterpart Lee Jae-myung while at the G7 summit.
Apparently PB feels that this isn't embarrassing because it was a Labour PM, not a Tory one.
It's a gaffe. It's not the most egregious gaffe made by a PM in the last twenty seven years. A much bigger gaffe will be if Starmer hangs on to Netanyahu and Trump's coat-tails over Iran hostilities.
Tbh, it's the kind of thing you would expect Starmer to get right. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse - if it was Johnson we'd consider it within expectations but also castigate him for it. With Starmer it's a surprise and therefore easier to accept as an honest mistake.
Johnson shaking the wrong hand would be (probably justifiably) filed under "Boris will be Boris". That sort of thing I am guessing happened so often we barely noticed. We didn't have hostile media hanging on his every word like Starmer does. It was only when errors were catastrophic, like Peppa Pig that the cat was let out of the bag. Sunak on the other hand didn't get away with much. The rain soaked announcement outside 10 Downing Street was never lived down. Theresa May too...
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.
Fetal survival rate in the UK: 24 weeks: Survival rates range from 42% to 59%. 23 weeks: Survival rates are lower, typically around 23% to 27%. 25 weeks: Survival rates improve, ranging from 67% to 76%
Discounting the elevated risk of severe long-term health complications.
Yes.
Almost as if 24 weeks was a compromise, based on the reality of there being no absolute number, isn’t it?
From my (considerably out of date) experience of such matters 24 weeks was 'should be OK' but any less was a matter for head-shaking and rapid intakes of breath.
If you could travel back in time to spring 1889 and convince Hitler's mum to have an abortion, would you?
No. I suspect there's a good chance someone else would have taken over Germany in the 1930s. They may have been more competent.
The normal science fiction trope story is that someone travels back in time, offs Hitler, and then someone worse/more competent takes over.
But there's a darker version which has a time traveller returning to the present and wondering why everyone isn't rejoicing at his having assassinated Hartler, who extended the Great Depression into the 1940s by pegging the Reichsmark to the dollar... https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2920
As my Dad revels in saying - there are not ifs in history.
However as an exercise its fun to imagine what 'could' have happened without Hitler. Your view will probably depend on whether you ascribe to the great man/woman view of history or to the broad sweep of history. Personally I think Hitler was a rather unique, gifted individual, and a thoroughly repellent human being. He undoubtedly was the star and driving force for the Nazi party. No Hitler - the Nazis would have been just another pathetic collection of right wing anti-semites in Munich. Could another right wing party/leader have seized power? Very possibly - after all the 1930's was the period for dictatorships. Would it have turned out the same way? Almost certainly not.
We might have had a Nazi Germany led by Heydrich, which would have been worse.
You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
It looks like the assistance will be restricted to "letting them use Diego Garcia", which is perhaps more permissible
We really don't want the RAF bombing bloody Qom. What extra can we add other than making us more of a target for understandable retaliation?
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.
Fetal survival rate in the UK: 24 weeks: Survival rates range from 42% to 59%. 23 weeks: Survival rates are lower, typically around 23% to 27%. 25 weeks: Survival rates improve, ranging from 67% to 76%
Discounting the elevated risk of severe long-term health complications.
Yes.
Almost as if 24 weeks was a compromise, based on the reality of there being no absolute number, isn’t it?
From my (considerably out of date) experience of such matters 24 weeks was 'should be OK' but any less was a matter for head-shaking and rapid intakes of breath.
My niece was born at 23 weeks.
The reaction of one nurse at the hospital - the child was doing well and just being monitored without medical intervention - was curious.
It'll be interesting to see how Nigel and Kemi play this if Sir Keir goes full lockstep with Donald. With Iraq, the British Right (with a few niche exceptions) fell over themselves to get some George W action along with Tone. Will they be quite so gung-ho this time? Nigel probably has the most thinking to do - he would have believed Donald was a hard-line isolationist and so this sort of stuff would never be a concern.
It'll be interesting to see how Nigel and Kemi play this if Sir Keir goes full lockstep with Donald. With Iraq, the British Right (with a few niche exceptions) fell over themselves to get some George W action along with Tone. Will they be quite so gung-ho this time? Nigel probably has the most thinking to do - he would have believed Donald was a hard-line isolationist and so this sort of stuff would never be a concern.
The MAGA contortions over this ending of isolationist america first are going to be popcorntastic.
If you could travel back in time to spring 1889 and convince Hitler's mum to have an abortion, would you?
No. I suspect there's a good chance someone else would have taken over Germany in the 1930s. They may have been more competent.
The normal science fiction trope story is that someone travels back in time, offs Hitler, and then someone worse/more competent takes over.
But there's a darker version which has a time traveller returning to the present and wondering why everyone isn't rejoicing at his having assassinated Hartler, who extended the Great Depression into the 1940s by pegging the Reichsmark to the dollar... https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2920
As my Dad revels in saying - there are not ifs in history.
However as an exercise its fun to imagine what 'could' have happened without Hitler. Your view will probably depend on whether you ascribe to the great man/woman view of history or to the broad sweep of history. Personally I think Hitler was a rather unique, gifted individual, and a thoroughly repellent human being. He undoubtedly was the star and driving force for the Nazi party. No Hitler - the Nazis would have been just another pathetic collection of right wing anti-semites in Munich. Could another right wing party/leader have seized power? Very possibly - after all the 1930's was the period for dictatorships. Would it have turned out the same way? Almost certainly not.
We might have had a Nazi Germany led by Heydrich, which would have been worse.
Not before the Nazis came to power. Or even after. To the “Old Nazis”, Heydrich was a latecomer of little importance. He only had power because he was elevated by Himmler and then Hitler himself.
Comments
Of course you never know, with the current nutter in the White House. But the political blowback would be way bigger than were Trump just to go ahead and have the US do the bombing for them.
Without recourse to the phonetic alphabet, which just confuses most people even more, it's often hard to tell.
The Conservatives were running the show less than a year ago and they were planning for the first trains to be running by 2026!
Will more people have very late abortions because of the law change? I doubt it changes the numbers much at all, but should be recorded so that we know.
Does sending the mother to prison actually help either as a deterrent or to stop further criminal acts? I can't see how it does, especially the latter.
So whilst an important, interesting and difficult moral dilemna, from a legal perspective I don't think it actually has much importance either way.
What! I've never heard that. How do you know that?
The alternative would be to have every pregnant women subject to conservative judges and/or politicians constraining every aspect of their behaviour (including access to medical advice) on behalf of the foetus.
As are most other religious minorities.
So those who try to make peace with Israel often succeed.
3 days grounded (and counting) at Trivandrum airport, the @RoyalNavy F-35B clearly has a proper snag. Seen here being guarded by the @CISFHQrs. Here’s wishing the aircraft a safe return to its home deck soon...
https://x.com/ShivAroor/status/1935213356891218367
Ran short of fuel, and had to divert, I think.
Not sure what the problem is with topping it back up.
As all the absolutist points of view seem a bit silly, imo it comes down to when you switch from erring on the side of the mother to erring on the side of the potential/actual baby and since you're making that switch from erring one way to the other... well whenever you choose you err...
24 weeks: Survival rates range from 42% to 59%.
23 weeks: Survival rates are lower, typically around 23% to 27%.
25 weeks: Survival rates improve, ranging from 67% to 76%
Discounting the elevated risk of severe long-term health complications.
Twenty one hours is a long time in politics
Sir Keir Starmer says he is confident that Donald Trump will not attack Iran
'There's nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict.
'On the contrary, throughout the dinner, yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was'
https://x.com/steven_swinford/status/1934998085593141567?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
BREAKING: Keir Starmer will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as soon as he lands back from G7, amid concerns US is about to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Downing Street unwilling to repeat PM’s words yesterday that he was confident US wouldn’t enter conflict.
https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/1935311921495916885?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Cobra meeting! Hasn't he got something better to do, like write a book about Shakespeare?
He's had another, diametrically opposite thought since then.
Second -- though this was seldom said out loud -- many whites feared the growth of the black population. There so many abortions done on black women that civil rights leader Jesse Jackson referred to it as a "Holocaust". (He changed to stay a player in the Democratic Party.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson
Third, one of the strongest early advocates of legalizing abortion was the late Hugh Hefner. For obvious reasons.
See also 'Genesis of the Daleks'.
It'll be very hard to get it back to the ship because the CSG can't wait for it so they'll probably have to try to get it back to the UK. Pain in the dick either way. Nice job for the gingers getting full of lamb pasanda and slaughtered on Kingfisher every night while the bit spends six weeks in Indian customs.
No 10 confirms that the families of British embassy staff left Israel last night, despite official advice to other Brits in the country to stay put
This is why you can quieten a baby by turning on a hoover or taking it in a car: white noise. The former worked brilliantly with my older daughter
And this is why you rock a baby to sleep - it mimics the sense of the mother’s movement in utero. Some say it’s why people - even as adults - sleep better on trains. They are rocked
https://www.forcesnews.com/services/tri-service/day-royal-navy-pilot-landed-spanish-container-ship
In practice, if you change one thing, you will change multiple things, in ways that you cannot predict.
This led to some rally stupid situations, including one where they did not want to change from the American IFF system to a Russian one, because that would mean a difference...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35452851/keir-starmer-g7-hand-shake-blunder/
Sir Keir Starmer stumbled into a major gaffe when he mistook an interpreter for the South Korean leader.
The Prime Minister shook hands with a translator rather than his counterpart Lee Jae-myung while at the G7 summit.
Rayner had to defend Labour's Tory-lite social policy (specifically PIP cuts) and appeared uncomfortable.
But there's a darker version which has a time traveller returning to the present and wondering why everyone isn't rejoicing at his having assassinated Hartler, who extended the Great Depression into the 1940s by pegging the Reichsmark to the dollar... https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2920
And the version where assassinating Hitler is a good thing also doesn't end well... https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/killing-hitler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KhJHxoaB1I
Bad weather in cocoa-producing regions such as Ghana and Ivory Coast have hit harvests.
"These two countries produce well over half of all the cocoa in the world," said Jonathan Parkman, head of agriculture at Marex, a commodities broker.
He added that problems in Ghana and Ivory Coast also included long-term government mismanagement of the cocoa sector and a surge in disease.
"There is little chance of a fall in chocolate prices this side of Christmas," he said.
In any case, I don't think the numbers are particularly important here compared with the principle.
Where I agree is that I would hate for this topic to become the subject of partisan abuse (indeed, ideally any sort of abuse but all the more so where it degenerates to 'your idea is bad, and you are bad, because you wear that colour rosette'). Parliament has generally debated abortion as well as any subject because it has come to the issue with consideration and thoughtfulness, and while people have strong views in some cases, even then they can see that there are counterarguments. I worry that ramming this legislation through so quickly and as an amendment goes against that tradition.
However as an exercise its fun to imagine what 'could' have happened without Hitler. Your view will probably depend on whether you ascribe to the great man/woman view of history or to the broad sweep of history. Personally I think Hitler was a rather unique, gifted individual, and a thoroughly repellent human being. He undoubtedly was the star and driving force for the Nazi party. No Hitler - the Nazis would have been just another pathetic collection of right wing anti-semites in Munich.
Could another right wing party/leader have seized power? Very possibly - after all the 1930's was the period for dictatorships. Would it have turned out the same way? Almost certainly not.
Eilean a' Cheò is the Isle of Skye.
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/19392/local-council-elections-19th-june?page=1
I go with Bethell every time. That bowling line up won't scare India.
In a more low-key way this is also Starmer's problem. He has a landslide majority on the basis of not being the Tories. But he's a complete political vacuum, and so there's no political motive power for his government to create anything better.
Of course in the US evangelical Protestants are even more anti abortion than Roman Catholics now even if mainline Protestants are still largely in favour with controls
We can’t find any figures to support that, and the @resfoundation says he “clearly misspoke”.
Here’s what the data shows 👇
buff.ly/ZqfvKR3
https://x.com/fullfact/status/1935006943845691756?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
First of all, eldest son was two months premature which meant, back in the 60's, two months isolation from his mother. He survived and his poor start doesn't seem to have affected him either intellectually or socially.
Secondly, fast forward twenty something years, our daughter, his younger sister was pregnant with her first child, and was told, fairly late in the process, that 'there appears to be something wrong with the baby; do you want a termination?" And I clearly recall her telling us that she could 'hear' the baby telling her that it was fine 'don't hurt me'. She didn't, and the child was perfectly normal, and indeed now has a doctorate.
However, in her late 40's and suffering from MND her contraception failed and she became pregnant. She was advised to have a late termination and did so. We were told the foetus appeared to have 'issues' and might or might not survived. Our daughter died of her MND when the baby would have been about a year old.
Fairly late in my pharmaceutical career I had a post which required me, sometimes, to make up 'balancing feeds' for premature babies, who were, one way and another short of various minerals due to abbreviated foetal development. At least one of these babies still has challenges, thirty years later, although I believe he has quite a demanding job.
I don't feel therefore that there's a simple answer to this matter unless it be to ALWAYS let nature take it's course, which would, equally, have lead to considerable problems in the last case. Thou shalt not kill/but do not strive/officiously/to keep alive seems to be a thought plus cheap, easily available contraception and contraceptive advice.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20250618/s-korean-president-lee-jae-myung-highlights-bilateral-cooperation-on-sidelines-of-g7-summit
Almost as if 24 weeks was a compromise, based on the reality of there being no absolute number, isn’t it?
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1935334839391256862
How about, Nah, not this time
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0267/240267.pdf
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar.com
· 5m
Q: Is the US moving closer to striking Iranian nuclear facilities?
TRUMP: I may do it, I may not do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do. Iran's got a lot of trouble.
We really don't want the RAF bombing bloody Qom. What extra can we add other than making us more of a target for understandable retaliation?
The reaction of one nurse at the hospital - the child was doing well and just being monitored without medical intervention - was curious.
NEW THREAD