I said yesterday that if England were going to win this it was going to take a century from one of Pope, Brook or Root. We have already had a 100 from one and we are on the edge of a second. That slip onto the boundary rope by Siraj is looking the turning point of a really brilliant Test match and indeed series.
Brook hold an all time record. Highest test average for a batsman who has played at least 50 innings and has one, or no not outs.
Could have some rain. Met Office site show a raincloud over the area. Might yet go on until tomorrow
I've got a ticket for tomorrow but not sure it would be worth going now even if there is rain.
If the Indians pick up a couple of wickets now it could be 'interesting' tomorrow. Even if brief!
There is loads of extra time can be played today due to previous slow over rate, rain and if there is a possibility of a result. I think they can go until 7.30pm.
Sprinkling of rain in the east London 'burbs, but now it's sunny again!
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Good.
We should do the same.
I don't think buying the Rafale would be very popular, but yes, pushback usually works better with Trump than the EU style semi-capitulation.
Problem is:
The Queen-Elizabeth carriers only work with the F35B
The Rafael manufacturers have a full order book and won't be able to start building new orders until around 2029.
Personally I think they should install cats and traps and fly navalized Typhoons: equally lengthy but at least we won't be beholden to the Americans or French
...Crikey, Starmer is rubbish. We've got about two/three years to prepare for a simultaneous China invasion of Taiwan and a Russian invasion of the Baltics, and we haven't got the stuff to do it. Frustrated viewcode is.
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Good.
We should do the same.
I don't think buying the Rafale would be very popular, but yes, pushback usually works better with Trump than the EU style semi-capitulation.
Problem is:
The Queen-Elizabeth carriers only work with the F35B
The Rafael manufacturers have a full order book and won't be able to start building new orders until around 2029.
Personally I think they should install cats and traps and fly navalized Typhoons: equally lengthy but at least we won't be beholden to the Americans or French
I think we should sell the carriers.
Then we wouldn't be able to suck up to the Americans to defend the trade routes with China against China in a Pacific war that nobody actually wants us in, and we'd have to focus on defending the actual war that actually affects us in the Baltics...
...Crikey, Starmer is rubbish. We've got about two/three years to prepare for a simultaneous China invasion of Taiwan and a Russian invasion of the Baltics, and we haven't got the stuff to do it. Frustrated viewcode is.
The carriers would be very useful in the scenario of Russian attacks on the Baltics/Finland.
See the multiple exercises for exactly this scenario over the years - when US and U.K. carriers took part.
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Good.
We should do the same.
I don't think buying the Rafale would be very popular, but yes, pushback usually works better with Trump than the EU style semi-capitulation.
Problem is:
The Queen-Elizabeth carriers only work with the F35B
The Rafael manufacturers have a full order book and won't be able to start building new orders until around 2029.
Personally I think they should install cats and traps and fly navalized Typhoons: equally lengthy but at least we won't be beholden to the Americans or French
I think we should sell the carriers.
Then we wouldn't be able to suck up to the Americans to defend the trade routes with China against China in a Pacific war that nobody actually wants us in, and we'd have to focus on defending the actual war that actually affects us in the Baltics...
...Crikey, Starmer is rubbish. We've got about two/three years to prepare for a simultaneous China invasion of Taiwan and a Russian invasion of the Baltics, and we haven't got the stuff to do it. Frustrated viewcode is.
The carriers would be very useful in the scenario of Russian attacks on the Baltics/Finland.
See the multiple exercises for exactly this scenario over the years - when US and U.K. carriers took part.
The F35B has a range of about a thousand miles. To use it in a Baltic War would mean the carriers would have to be in the Baltic Sea, which is close enough to the Russian border to be sunk by the Russians. You could move them into the North Sea but then they'd only have a few minutes on station over the Baltics which is useless. Meanwhile nobody's monitoring the GIUK gap and Russian subs are roaming free.
In extremis, the carriers could be in the Mediterranian and fly north-south but again, range problems.
Frankly it's easier to buy F35As or Gripens and station them in UK or Germany. Aircraft carriers are for small problems on the other side of the world. But our biggest problem is a large problem on this side of the world. We are bringing a knife to a gun fight.
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Good.
We should do the same.
I don't think buying the Rafale would be very popular, but yes, pushback usually works better with Trump than the EU style semi-capitulation.
Problem is:
The Queen-Elizabeth carriers only work with the F35B
The Rafael manufacturers have a full order book and won't be able to start building new orders until around 2029.
Personally I think they should install cats and traps and fly navalized Typhoons: equally lengthy but at least we won't be beholden to the Americans or French
I think we should sell the carriers.
Then we wouldn't be able to suck up to the Americans to defend the trade routes with China against China in a Pacific war that nobody actually wants us in, and we'd have to focus on defending the actual war that actually affects us in the Baltics...
...Crikey, Starmer is rubbish. We've got about two/three years to prepare for a simultaneous China invasion of Taiwan and a Russian invasion of the Baltics, and we haven't got the stuff to do it. Frustrated viewcode is.
The carriers would be very useful in the scenario of Russian attacks on the Baltics/Finland.
See the multiple exercises for exactly this scenario over the years - when US and U.K. carriers took part.
The F35B has a range of about a thousand miles. To use it in a Baltic War would mean the carriers would have to be in the Baltic Sea, which is close enough to the Russian border to be sunk by the Russians. You could move them into the North Sea but then they'd only have a few minutes on station over the Baltics which is useless. Meanwhile nobody's monitoring the GIUK gap and Russian subs are roaming free.
In extremis, the carriers could be in the Mediterranian and fly north-south but again, range problems.
Frankly it's easier to buy F35As or Gripens and station them in UK or Germany. Aircraft carriers are for small problems on the other side of the world. But our biggest problem is a large problem on this side of the world. We are bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Along with that, it's £2-300m a year just to maintain them. And them at figure ignores future refits, systems upgrades, cost of the embarked aircraft.
The assets required to operate them as part of a task force independently don't exist.
They provide a capability, but as you say, it's heavily limited by the range of the F35B - which is far less useful in the European theatre than the longer range, cheaper F35A.
There's also a very large medium term risk from cheap subsurface drone swarms for any large capital ship.
They represent a poor gamble on the nature of future threats, IMO.
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Good.
We should do the same.
I don't think buying the Rafale would be very popular, but yes, pushback usually works better with Trump than the EU style semi-capitulation.
Problem is:
The Queen-Elizabeth carriers only work with the F35B
The Rafael manufacturers have a full order book and won't be able to start building new orders until around 2029.
Personally I think they should install cats and traps and fly navalized Typhoons: equally lengthy but at least we won't be beholden to the Americans or French
I think we should sell the carriers.
Why? As they are, each one carries enough modern aircraft to outfight most airforces.
There’s a reason the Russians desperately hang on to their wreck of a carrier.
And why the French have theirs. And India…
Bang for buck I think. If a carrier fleet is one of the most expensive military capabilities a medium sized country can operate, while being somewhat useful, does it justify itself when other cheaper and more important capabilities aren't afforded?
The history of such things is that when capability goes away, the money doesn’t get given to “cheaper capabilities”
The last time the RN relinquished carriers, this was used to justify further cuts to surface warships!
So you're looking at procurement cost of £7 billion for the two carriers, £1 billion so far in remedial work, £20 billion lifetime cost for the F35B aircraft, a couple of escort submarines, several other surface ships, yearly maintenance etc. The total cost of the programme will be well north of £50 billion. This isn't back of sofa money. Other programmes will be seriously compromised to afford it.
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Good.
We should do the same.
I don't think buying the Rafale would be very popular, but yes, pushback usually works better with Trump than the EU style semi-capitulation.
Problem is:
The Queen-Elizabeth carriers only work with the F35B
The Rafael manufacturers have a full order book and won't be able to start building new orders until around 2029.
Personally I think they should install cats and traps and fly navalized Typhoons: equally lengthy but at least we won't be beholden to the Americans or French
I think we should sell the carriers.
Then we wouldn't be able to suck up to the Americans to defend the trade routes with China against China in a Pacific war that nobody actually wants us in, and we'd have to focus on defending the actual war that actually affects us in the Baltics...
...Crikey, Starmer is rubbish. We've got about two/three years to prepare for a simultaneous China invasion of Taiwan and a Russian invasion of the Baltics, and we haven't got the stuff to do it. Frustrated viewcode is.
The carriers would be very useful in the scenario of Russian attacks on the Baltics/Finland.
See the multiple exercises for exactly this scenario over the years - when US and U.K. carriers took part.
The F35B has a range of about a thousand miles. To use it in a Baltic War would mean the carriers would have to be in the Baltic Sea, which is close enough to the Russian border to be sunk by the Russians. You could move them into the North Sea but then they'd only have a few minutes on station over the Baltics which is useless. Meanwhile nobody's monitoring the GIUK gap and Russian subs are roaming free.
In extremis, the carriers could be in the Mediterranian and fly north-south but again, range problems.
Frankly it's easier to buy F35As or Gripens and station them in UK or Germany. Aircraft carriers are for small problems on the other side of the world. But our biggest problem is a large problem on this side of the world. We are bringing a knife to a gun fight.
You are forgetting aerial refuelling.
In addition, in some of these exercises, the RN was using the Sea Harrier which had very short range.
In multiple exercises, US and UK carrier hammered the opposing forces by flying from non-fixed locations.
Russian Frontal Aviation isn’t what it was in the 80s or 90s - when those exercises took place. Russian recon assets are a fraction of what they were, when entire American carrier battle groups managed to evade the RORSATs.
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Good.
We should do the same.
I don't think buying the Rafale would be very popular, but yes, pushback usually works better with Trump than the EU style semi-capitulation.
Problem is:
The Queen-Elizabeth carriers only work with the F35B
The Rafael manufacturers have a full order book and won't be able to start building new orders until around 2029.
Personally I think they should install cats and traps and fly navalized Typhoons: equally lengthy but at least we won't be beholden to the Americans or French
I think we should sell the carriers.
Then we wouldn't be able to suck up to the Americans to defend the trade routes with China against China in a Pacific war that nobody actually wants us in, and we'd have to focus on defending the actual war that actually affects us in the Baltics...
...Crikey, Starmer is rubbish. We've got about two/three years to prepare for a simultaneous China invasion of Taiwan and a Russian invasion of the Baltics, and we haven't got the stuff to do it. Frustrated viewcode is.
The carriers would be very useful in the scenario of Russian attacks on the Baltics/Finland.
See the multiple exercises for exactly this scenario over the years - when US and U.K. carriers took part.
Given we are an island that depends on global trade for its prosperity and survival getting rid of our carriers, the one thing that allows our fleet to be deployed for offence - and allows its defence - anywhere in the world, would be deeply stupid.
Can’t believe I was refused that bet. I only bet once a year
Terrible bad luck. Any explanation?
Some issue with Apple Pay. Then it refused to take any other debit cards. I wonder if the app is “programmed” to put obstacles in front of bets that suddenly look too generous. Grrrr
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
It really shouldn't be so. Blind attacks on a fortified position after all. I guess the thing is that forts don't sink.
I think Hideyoshi once effectively made a city/fort an island by diverting a river. That might also be the inspiration for one of the events in The Black Company series, when something similar happened.
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
It really shouldn't be so. Blind attacks on a fortified position after all. I guess the thing is that forts don't sink.
I think Hideyoshi once effectively made a city/fort an island by diverting a river. That might also be the inspiration for one of the events in The Black Company series, when something similar happened.
And there was something along those lines in 'Use of Weapons'. (Not heard of Black company. So apologies. But I rather insist that everyone has to know about my reference!)
Arrgh. Tomorrow I have to continue my trial for culpable homicide (manslaughter) in Glasgow. At 11o'clock I will be taking a forensic pathologist through a fairly grisly post mortem.
And this test match will be coming to a climax with refreshed India bowlers and an English tail.
Am i going to have to quickly book a Premier Inn and train ticket?
Oh i presumed it was just a Tube ride to the match. Not sure I would got train and hotel for either 30 odd runs or 3 wickets.
No I live in the central Midlands.
Oh I don't think I would be bothering then. 150 to get with say 3 down, I would be going, but not 30 odd runs.
I went to a 5th day at Trent Bridge for England vs NZ. Must be ten years ago or so. One of them was close to a win. Can't remember who. We spent the two hours of play drinking beer and willing the other side on so that we'd get a decent amount of spectating!!
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
It really shouldn't be so. Blind attacks on a fortified position after all. I guess the thing is that forts don't sink.
So how are the drones going to get to the carrier. A drone that can fly 500 miles and tries to evade defences - that’s a large, expensive missile.
This ship was designed to carry exactly this kind of “drone”
This worked as well as the various attempts at Torpedo Cruisers - ships whose primary armament were torpedoes.
A speedboat drone, you say? Well a functioning CIWS deals with those. The Russians had a slight problem that their CIWS doesn’t work. Navies have been dealing with that idea since World War *One* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FL-boat
An underwater drone that can travel miles? Aka a torpedo.
And so on and so forth.
Essentially - drones are cheap when you want to carry a few kilos a few miles. Beyond that, you rapidly get back to expensive, large vehicles.
Arrgh. Tomorrow I have to continue my trial for culpable homicide (manslaughter) in Glasgow. At 11o'clock I will be taking a forensic pathologist through a fairly grisly post mortem.
And this test match will be coming to a climax with refreshed India bowlers and an English tail.
Life can be pretty brutal sometimes.
On the contrary I think the delay benefits England
India were looking like they might cruise through the last wickets. The Indian crowd was roused. We were getting 1 run an hour
Tomorrow it will be calmer. 35 runs to get. 4 wickets. Tiny crowd. We can do it
I need to understand this, so I know what will be removed from my society, or unfunded.
Drop kerbs for wheel chair users are about supporting people with Diverse needs to be Included Equitably.
Are they all going to be dug up and replaced with normal kerbs at pedestrian crossings when Danny Kruger is PM?
(The question still stands, btw.)
I am not sure what you want people to tell you.
How about defining the meaning of 'racism'? It means something completely different to every single person, from narrow definitions to vastly stretched all-encompassing ones, yet there is a widespread effort to 'kick it out' of society and make all expressions of it or that might be construed as expressions of it unacceptable and even illegal. Nobody stops to ask how we should define it as if that's a kind of argument for doing nothing about it.
If you were building a successful society in a computer game simulation, would you build one where the population was encouraged to view itself as defined by its 'section' and encouraged in a sense of grievance and underprivilege relative to other groups? Would you build a society that felt guilty enough to borrow money on behalf of its own children to give to other countries whose ancestors its own ancestors were perceived to have wronged? Would you build a society focused on what divides it not what unites it, and produce citizens focused on what compensation they might be entitled to rather than what they could contribute? That refused to control its borders because to do so was perceived as racist? That refused to apply the law equally without favour because that was also perceived as racist? It would be game over pretty quickly.
If building a society in a computer game I would probably reflect on the success criteria.
To answer you on racism, it is as you say a matter of opinion. As a democracy we have public debate like this. And our law around discrimination focuses on acts not attitudes or opinions, which is imo important for how we regulate public life. We also have race as aggravating factors etc, which is a linked but different debate.
I think as a society we have perfectly serviceable and robust definitions in law in the Equality Act 2010, as developed over half a century by a process starting from the Race Relations Act 1965. We have not changed it since 2010 so that seems quite settled. We have:
"The Equality Act 2010 says you must not be discriminated against because of your race (EHRC summary).
elucidated by Section 9:
(1)Race includes— (a)colour; (b)nationality; (c)ethnic or national origins. (2)In relation to the protected characteristic of race— (a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group.
That seems clear to me. I'd define racism as an attitude or opinion which could provide justification for such conduct.
Moving on to "oke", I'm looking for a definition of "woke" that I can interrogate and evaluate, sparked by the video you posted. There nobody i have seen commenting, including Kruger himself, seems to have the foggiest idea what he is talking about. Unless he is relying on a trope such as "I'll know it when I see it".
I'll have to have a look at who says "woke" most in Parliament, and to see if it has much meaning.
Thanks for your reply.
You're welcome. The success criteria is survival. A society beset by woke ideas is one heading for decline - the worse the case of woke, the more terminal and imminent the decline.
I am puzzled as to why and how you feel that what you have presented there is a clear definition of racism. Is whiteness a protected characteristic within those guidelines, or is it OK to discriminate against whites - for example in employment?
Personally I would define racism as the belief (the stupid belief in my opinion) in the superiority or inferiority of any given race. But that's my view, and everyone's is different. I could loudly question how anyone can be against something that they can't even agree on a definiton of, but thankfully I have more taste.
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
It really shouldn't be so. Blind attacks on a fortified position after all. I guess the thing is that forts don't sink.
So how are the drones going to get to the carrier. A drone that can fly 500 miles and tries to evade defences - that’s a large, expensive missile.
This ship was designed to carry exactly this kind of “drone”
This worked as well as the various attempts at Torpedo Cruisers - ships whose primary armament were torpedoes.
A speedboat drone, you say? Well a functioning CIWS deals with those. The Russians had a slight problem that their CIWS doesn’t work. Navies have been dealing with that idea since World War *One* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FL-boat
An underwater drone that can travel miles? Aka a torpedo.
And so on and so forth.
Essentially - drones are cheap when you want to carry a few kilos a few miles. Beyond that, you rapidly get back to expensive, large vehicles.
Arrgh. Tomorrow I have to continue my trial for culpable homicide (manslaughter) in Glasgow. At 11o'clock I will be taking a forensic pathologist through a fairly grisly post mortem.
And this test match will be coming to a climax with refreshed India bowlers and an English tail.
Life can be pretty brutal sometimes.
I have a side interest in Mental Health. Do lawyers get help to deal with having to read and digest grisly post mortems and other scenarios that Joe Public don't see. Or do you just have to 'grow some' as is the usual advice?
I get to work with all the services - forces, police, NHS, ambulance and hospice staff. People have to deal with some gruesome stuff and wondered what the current thinking is?
Arrgh. Tomorrow I have to continue my trial for culpable homicide (manslaughter) in Glasgow. At 11o'clock I will be taking a forensic pathologist through a fairly grisly post mortem.
And this test match will be coming to a climax with refreshed India bowlers and an English tail.
Life can be pretty brutal sometimes.
I have a side interest in Mental Health. Do lawyers get help to deal with having to read and digest grisly post mortems and other scenarios that Joe Public don't see. Or do you just have to 'grow some' as is the usual advice?
I get to work with all the services - forces, police, NHS, ambulance and hospice staff. People have to deal with some gruesome stuff and wondered what the current thinking is?
We have services on hand if we need them and a check once a year. Some of it is grim. Last week in a murder we had CCTV showing someone being brutally murdered outside some shops as people walked by with prams. It was horrific and I will remember it for a long time. I find cases where children have been abused particularly hard to deal with. Its not always easy.
Family bought car as surprise birthday present but did not insure it. Waitress could not insure car because she did not know it existed (and could not drive anyway).
Convicted under the Single Justice Procedure. Expect more on this because it also is used for TV licence cases, so allows rival media empires to take a pop at the BBC. Nonetheless, reform would seem popular and cheap so it is no surprise that governments show no interest.
Does seems a case of being harshly treated however it appears she didn't respond to the letter saying they had a fine to pay which would have resolved the issue before going anywhere near a court and she plead guilty.
You never ever ignore communications like this. You respond straight away even if to query it / ask for more information, then there is a paper trail of you trying to resolve the matter.
She pleaded guilty, as many people do in these cases expecting their mitigation to be taken into account.
Arrgh. Tomorrow I have to continue my trial for culpable homicide (manslaughter) in Glasgow. At 11o'clock I will be taking a forensic pathologist through a fairly grisly post mortem.
And this test match will be coming to a climax with refreshed India bowlers and an English tail.
Life can be pretty brutal sometimes.
On the contrary I think the delay benefits England
India were looking like they might cruise through the last wickets. The Indian crowd was roused. We were getting 1 run an hour
Tomorrow it will be calmer. 35 runs to get. 4 wickets. Tiny crowd. We can do it
New ball in 6 overs. It is delightfully poised. A fitting finale to the best series of recent years.
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
It really shouldn't be so. Blind attacks on a fortified position after all. I guess the thing is that forts don't sink.
So how are the drones going to get to the carrier. A drone that can fly 500 miles and tries to evade defences - that’s a large, expensive missile...
Subsurface loitering (as in months at a time) drone swarms. The Germans already are beginning production of such a system.
It won't be a serious threat for a few years, but beyond that, threatens to make large, very expensive capital ships (and possibly nuclear subs) obsolete in many theatres.
When a carrier group is £50bn, and needs to stay relevant for two to three decades, then a nation the size of the UK is taking a huge gamble that isn't the case.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
It really shouldn't be so. Blind attacks on a fortified position after all. I guess the thing is that forts don't sink.
So how are the drones going to get to the carrier. A drone that can fly 500 miles and tries to evade defences - that’s a large, expensive missile.
This ship was designed to carry exactly this kind of “drone”
This worked as well as the various attempts at Torpedo Cruisers - ships whose primary armament were torpedoes.
A speedboat drone, you say? Well a functioning CIWS deals with those. The Russians had a slight problem that their CIWS doesn’t work. Navies have been dealing with that idea since World War *One* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FL-boat
An underwater drone that can travel miles? Aka a torpedo.
And so on and so forth.
Essentially - drones are cheap when you want to carry a few kilos a few miles. Beyond that, you rapidly get back to expensive, large vehicles.
Am i going to have to quickly book a Premier Inn and train ticket?
Oh i presumed it was just a Tube ride to the match. Not sure I would got train and hotel for either 30 odd runs or 3 wickets.
No I live in the central Midlands.
Oh I don't think I would be bothering then. 150 to get with say 3 down, I would be going, but not 30 odd runs.
Yes. It will be over within 30 minutes. Either way
Bit of a shame if it ends this way
Wontbe 30 minutes - it’s too tight for that. (If it had been Root and Brook still there then it would have been). Either way I think an hour minimum, but the joy of it is this - under 15 overs = full refund!
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
It really shouldn't be so. Blind attacks on a fortified position after all. I guess the thing is that forts don't sink.
So how are the drones going to get to the carrier. A drone that can fly 500 miles and tries to evade defences - that’s a large, expensive missile.
This ship was designed to carry exactly this kind of “drone”
This worked as well as the various attempts at Torpedo Cruisers - ships whose primary armament were torpedoes.
A speedboat drone, you say? Well a functioning CIWS deals with those. The Russians had a slight problem that their CIWS doesn’t work. Navies have been dealing with that idea since World War *One* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FL-boat
An underwater drone that can travel miles? Aka a torpedo.
And so on and so forth.
Essentially - drones are cheap when you want to carry a few kilos a few miles. Beyond that, you rapidly get back to expensive, large vehicles.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Drones aren’t making surface warships obsolete.
Ok. (I think I said that anyway) Will drones and unmanned surface warships make manned surface warships obsolete? To this I think the answer is yes.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
In the USA, "woke" consists of trans, EDI, racism, the iconoclasm, Confederate nostalgia and Lost Cause activism, academic admission criteria, critical race theory, and various flavours of history analysis
In the UK, "woke" consists of trans...and that's it.
According to advocacy groups, Go appeared before an immigration judge on July 31 for what was expected to be a routine visa hearing. The judge rescheduled her next court date for Oct. 21. However, as she exited the courtroom, five U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained her and placed her in custody.
Go has been denied bail and visitation rights and is currently being held at an ICE detention facility in New York, her legal representative said...
My stint in Tavira comes to a dulcet close. The Algarvian sun sets over the Roman bridge; the swifts stitch the air around the Moorish fort, the gin and tonic clinks by the sleepy riverbank, applauding good work done
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
It really shouldn't be so. Blind attacks on a fortified position after all. I guess the thing is that forts don't sink.
So how are the drones going to get to the carrier. A drone that can fly 500 miles and tries to evade defences - that’s a large, expensive missile.
This ship was designed to carry exactly this kind of “drone”
This worked as well as the various attempts at Torpedo Cruisers - ships whose primary armament were torpedoes.
A speedboat drone, you say? Well a functioning CIWS deals with those. The Russians had a slight problem that their CIWS doesn’t work. Navies have been dealing with that idea since World War *One* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FL-boat
An underwater drone that can travel miles? Aka a torpedo.
And so on and so forth.
Essentially - drones are cheap when you want to carry a few kilos a few miles. Beyond that, you rapidly get back to expensive, large vehicles.
Can’t believe I was refused that bet. I only bet once a year
Terrible bad luck. Any explanation?
Some issue with Apple Pay. Then it refused to take any other debit cards. I wonder if the app is “programmed” to put obstacles in front of bets that suddenly look too generous. Grrrr
Ok. (I think I said that anyway) Will drones and unmanned surface warships make manned surface warships obsolete? To this I think the answer is yes.
Probably not any time soon. A manned warship has several large advantages over a USV. For a start, USVs are dependant on long range communications. Jam or disrupt the coms and your shiny floating drone is completely ineffective.
Another limitation is the basic nature of the damage control systems you can implement on an unmanned platform, which starts to become a serious problem once the size and cost of them goes beyond the disposable. A well trained crew can save even a very severely damaged ship. Also, warships are often called upon to perform duties beyond simply 'blowing shit up', and again USVs don't really work for most of those roles.
Western doctrine is to regard naval drones as extensions of manned platforms, and I broadly agree with that right now.
Of course that could change if a major power like China decided to go all-in with a fleet of autonomous AI-driven drones. But let's hope nobody is that stupid.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Ok. (I think I said that anyway) Will drones and unmanned surface warships make manned surface warships obsolete? To this I think the answer is yes.
Probably not any time soon. A manned warship has several large advantages over a USV. For a start, USVs are dependant on long range communications. Jam or disrupt the coms and your shiny floating drone is completely ineffective.
Another limitation is the basic nature of the damage control systems you can implement on an unmanned platform, which starts to become a serious problem once the size and cost of them goes beyond the disposable. A well trained crew can save even a very severely damaged ship. Also, warships are often called upon to perform duties beyond simply 'blowing shit up', and again USVs don't really work for most of those roles.
Western doctrine is to regard naval drones as extensions of manned platforms, and I broadly agree with that right now.
Of course that could change if a major power like China decided to go all-in with a fleet of autonomous AI-driven drones. But let's hope nobody is that stupid.
But having all that being said, if you had the odd billion or two to invest in naval power, where would you put your money?
Of course any arms race that involves such things basically revolves around the ability to communicate from space. That's a far, far bigger problem.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
That's a good point. I would imagine, for example, that J.K. Rowling is pretty 'woke' on other issues. There are lots of things us wokesters disagree on - e.g. is racial injustice or class injustice more important these days (I tend to the latter view)?. Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
People banging on about defying woke are only ever going to get examples, as with pornography. How about the Peggie vs Fife case? Here you have senior members of staff claiming not to know if they are man or woman based on not having their chromosomes tested. You have a man with cock and balls allowed to use the womens single sex changing because that’s what he wants to happen, with no one asking the women if they have an issue with this. You have senior medical staff seemingly without scientific understanding of biology. Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
n 'Woke' is about awareness of social and political issues. Social and political issues effect both women and trans people; hence, it is possible to be 'woke' and be for, or against, trans. In the same way many feminists are pro-trans, and many are anti-trans.
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
The issue for me is the denial of basic science. Trans women can feel that they are a woman all they like, but biology says no. And you have clinicians, consultants no less, tying themselves in knots about this idea.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Have you known, and talked, to anyone who is trans?
Yes. A few.
Treat them with respect and call them whatever name they want to be called and any pronouns they want to be called, is entirely reasonable.
Violating safeguarding is not reasonable.
A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces.
Be reasonable, but don't violate safeguarding. Its not rocket science.
Comments
The question is - Is the drink playing Leon today or not?
Highest test average for a batsman who has played at least 50 innings and has one, or no not outs.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmax2=1;qualmin1=50;qualval1=innings;qualval2=notouts;template=results;type=batting
...Crikey, Starmer is rubbish. We've got about two/three years to prepare for a simultaneous China invasion of Taiwan and a Russian invasion of the Baltics, and we haven't got the stuff to do it. Frustrated viewcode is.
See the multiple exercises for exactly this scenario over the years - when US and U.K. carriers took part.
In extremis, the carriers could be in the Mediterranian and fly north-south but again, range problems.
Frankly it's easier to buy F35As or Gripens and station them in UK or Germany. Aircraft carriers are for small problems on the other side of the world. But our biggest problem is a large problem on this side of the world. We are bringing a knife to a gun fight.
The worst thing is I tried to put £10 on India at 33/1 and bet365 refused my payments
Drama!!!
He'll haunt you, you know!
And them at figure ignores future refits, systems upgrades, cost of the embarked aircraft.
The assets required to operate them as part of a task force independently don't exist.
They provide a capability, but as you say, it's heavily limited by the range of the F35B - which is far less useful in the European theatre than the longer range, cheaper F35A.
There's also a very large medium term risk from cheap subsurface drone swarms for any large capital ship.
They represent a poor gamble on the nature of future threats, IMO.
But our batters have gone and their bowlers are in
In addition, in some of these exercises, the RN was using the Sea Harrier which had very short range.
In multiple exercises, US and UK carrier hammered the opposing forces by flying from non-fixed locations.
Russian Frontal Aviation isn’t what it was in the 80s or 90s - when those exercises took place. Russian recon assets are a fraction of what they were, when entire American carrier battle groups managed to evade the RORSATs.
Could have saved England.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDvgL58h_Y
Would've thought drones would rather bugger up an aircraft carrier in a cost-effective fashion.
Now?
Unbelievable
And this test match will be coming to a climax with refreshed India bowlers and an English tail.
Life can be pretty brutal sometimes.
Bit of a shame if it ends this way
This ship was designed to carry exactly this kind of “drone”
This worked as well as the various attempts at Torpedo Cruisers - ships whose primary armament were torpedoes.
A speedboat drone, you say? Well a functioning CIWS deals with those. The Russians had a slight problem that their CIWS doesn’t work. Navies have been dealing with that idea since World War *One* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FL-boat
An underwater drone that can travel miles? Aka a torpedo.
And so on and so forth.
Essentially - drones are cheap when you want to carry a few kilos a few miles. Beyond that, you rapidly get back to expensive, large vehicles.
India were looking like they might cruise through the last wickets. The Indian crowd was roused. We were getting 1 run an hour
Tomorrow it will be calmer. 35 runs to get. 4 wickets. Tiny crowd. We can do it
I am puzzled as to why and how you feel that what you have presented there is a clear definition of racism. Is whiteness a protected characteristic within those guidelines, or is it OK to discriminate against whites - for example in employment?
Personally I would define racism as the belief (the stupid belief in my opinion) in the superiority or inferiority of any given race. But that's my view, and everyone's is different. I could loudly question how anyone can be against something that they can't even agree on a definiton of, but thankfully I have more taste.
I get to work with all the services - forces, police, NHS, ambulance and hospice staff. People have to deal with some gruesome stuff and wondered what the current thinking is?
It's very hard to understand why his hasn't stood down a long time ago. We need better politicians.
It may as well be thrown in the bin. It never is.
SJPs are a disgrace.
The govt has promised reform but drags its heels
https://x.com/kirkkorner/status/1951582170881163720?s=61
The Germans already are beginning production of such a system.
It won't be a serious threat for a few years, but beyond that, threatens to make large, very expensive capital ships (and possibly nuclear subs) obsolete in many theatres.
When a carrier group is £50bn, and needs to stay relevant for two to three decades, then a nation the size of the UK is taking a huge gamble that isn't the case.
My golden rule is a politician who allows themselves to be photographed is unfit for public office.
Whatever your views of Peggie’s Glaswegian racism (Chinky, and Paki for instance), the treatment of her in the name of EDI has been shocking and is a classic case of Woke behaviour.
That's likely to be a more important capability when planning for any future conflict.
And of value in peacetime too.
Doctor Who: AI Tribute to Spare Parts | 5-Minute Adaptation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLQMK2ciZ_8
🚨Taiwan deputy foreign minister Wu Chihchung: “China is preparing to invade Taiwan”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1952054571380908035
Unless he means invade this year ?
Perhaps not for much longer.
US immigration authorities detain daughter of Korean Episcopal priest
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20250803/us-immigration-authorities-detain-daughter-of-korean-episcopal-priest
..Go enrolled as a freshman at Purdue University in August 2024, and her stay was extended through December 2025.
According to advocacy groups, Go appeared before an immigration judge on July 31 for what was expected to be a routine visa hearing. The judge rescheduled her next court date for Oct. 21. However, as she exited the courtroom, five U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained her and placed her in custody.
Go has been denied bail and visitation rights and is currently being held at an ICE detention facility in New York, her legal representative said...
Obregado, Portugal
Which is one of the reasons there is such a massive and stupid controversy over it.
https://youtu.be/A5PMHVTWvu8?si=QcKYqZZKQLYc6p02
Another limitation is the basic nature of the damage control systems you can implement on an unmanned platform, which starts to become a serious problem once the size and cost of them goes beyond the disposable. A well trained crew can save even a very severely damaged ship. Also, warships are often called upon to perform duties beyond simply 'blowing shit up', and again USVs don't really work for most of those roles.
Western doctrine is to regard naval drones as extensions of manned platforms, and I broadly agree with that right now.
Of course that could change if a major power like China decided to go all-in with a fleet of autonomous AI-driven drones. But let's hope nobody is that stupid.
There is an old saying ‘Give them an inch and they will steal a mile’ and this is wha5 happens in the EDI world. People trying to be fair and do right by all end up with men in women’s changing rooms because ‘they feel that’s where they should be’. It’s bollocks (ironically enough).
Of course any arms race that involves such things basically revolves around the ability to communicate from space. That's a far, far bigger problem.
Which is why describing 'wokeness' as an ideology, as I've seen written today, is nonsense.
Treat them with respect and call them whatever name they want to be called and any pronouns they want to be called, is entirely reasonable.
Violating safeguarding is not reasonable.
A man who identifies as a woman should not be in a woman's changing room, especially when there's gender-neutral facilities available they can use instead without violating women's safe spaces.
Be reasonable, but don't violate safeguarding. Its not rocket science.